Full Committee Hearing on the Trump Administration’s 2026 Trade Policy Agenda with United States

The committee will come to order. Ambassador Greer, Greer, welcome back to the the best committee in Congress, the Ways and Means Committee. Um, uh, before we get started, I just wanted to point out, um, my dissatisfaction for receiving your testimony. We received your testimony at seven O eight last night, and we asked for every witness to do it within forty-eight hours. And, um, whether you're in the party that I'm in or not, I think that that's just not duly proper,

Mm.

um, within our committee. This is not true. This is not true. Not even one day before the death of a victim. Um, since last April's Liberation Day, the sky has not fallen on the economy as the so-called experts and naysayers predicted. The Trump administration's America First trade agenda is opening new markets to American workers, manufacturers, and farmers, eliminating long-standing tariffs on American products, and securing commitments of over one trillion dollars in investments in our country. Since returning to office, President Trump's administration has signed more than eighteen new trade agreements and frameworks that are supporting American jobs, strengthening our industrial base and securing our supply chains. Here are just a few examples of the U. S. wins for manufacturers and American workers. The European Union will eliminate tariffs on U. S. vehicles from ten percent to zero. Cambodia eliminated all tariffs on imports from the United States, including going from fifteen percent to zero on a wide range of US-made machinery and equipment. Taiwan will eliminate tariffs on most vehicles down from a previous range of fifteen to twenty-five percent. Malaysia provided preferential tariff rates to most U. S. products, including chemicals, electrical equipment, and metals. I represent one of the most ag-heavy districts in both Missouri and the entire United States. Under President Trump, the wins for America's farmers and ranchers have been nothing short of historic. Australia, agreed to accept U. S. Beef for the first time, in two decades. Cambodia has dropped its tariffs on American farm products to zero from an average of twelve percent and even higher rates on certain products like thirty-five percent, on certain processed food and beverages. Japan will buy eight billion dollars in U S agriculture goods, including buying seventy-five percent more U S rice. Taiwan will eliminate tariffs on ninety-four percent of our agriculture products. The United Kingdom eliminated its twenty percent tariff on US beef and opened the door to one point four billion liters of ethanol. Argentina agreed to eliminate tariffs on some US dairy products that faced a twenty-eight percent tariff. Ecuador Committed to provide preferential treatment for more than ninety percent of our agriculture products, including tariff elimination for soybeans, fresh and processed fruit, alcoholic beverages, and tree and ground nuts, as well as for certain dairy, beef, pork, and poultry products. India reduced tariffs on American bourbon from a hundred and fifty percent to a hundred percent last year. and committed to further reduce or eliminate tariffs on all American wine and spirits. The result? A projected forty-three percent reduction in the agriculture trade deficit that was inherited from the Biden administration. Last year, exports rose to a record three point four trillion dollars. Our goods trade deficits with China dropped by thirty-two percent to its lowest level since two thousand and four, decreasing US reliance on a foreign adversary. China's share of all US imports dramatically fell from thirteen point four percent to nine point three percent in a single year. President Trump's tariff policies provided the leverage needed to achieve these wins that no other president has been able to ever accomplish. One area of concern, however, to me and to a large group is in an American manufacturing. President Trump's America First agenda is all about bringing jobs and investment back to the United States. But we cannot accomplish this goal if our trade policies actually incentivize companies to locate their facilities to Mexico and Canada rather than the United States. I've had CEOs of several large businesses tell me just in recent weeks that it would be better to locate um one of their major manufacturing facilities in Mexico rather than Texas because under USMCA rules they are able to import many more of their components, parts, tariff-free. then bring the finished product into the United States tariff-free as well. In this respect, Mexico and Canada have obtained a cost advantage, and it must be addressed to help American workers. I support the USMCA, but President Trump is correct that we cannot just rubber-stamp the status quo. As the July first joint review deadline nears, We must review the improvements that are needed to continue the agreement's success and eliminate loopholes like this. We've also seen with USMCA how benefits can fail to materialize for American producers when trade agreements are not robustly enforced. Mexico should have never Mexico should have never blocked imports of US corn. which was not resolved until shortly before President Trump's swearing-in. And American dairy farmers still have not resolved their dispute over access to the Canadian market. This committee looks forward to working with you, Ambassador Greer, and your team throughout the joint review process. Our country cannot go back to business as usual and reverse the historic gains won by President Trump's trade policies. Even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I support the use of section one twenty-two tariffs while the administration continues section three O one and section two thirty-two investigations. One of the few smart things President Biden one of the few that President Biden did was keep many of President Trump's section two thirty-two and section three O one tariffs in place. because even he knew they were in America's best interest. Looking ahead, this administration must be vigilant and focus on enforcing the commitments trading partners made in these new trade agreements. Americans must experience the full benefits of these agreements. Another priority is the African Growth and Opportunity Act. The committee provi proved this bipartisan support for OGOA remained strong when we secured renewal for another year. But a long-term reauthorization that advances America's strategic interest is an absolute must. AGOA strength- strengthens our critical supply chains and helps us counter the harmful influence of nations like China and Russia in one of the fastest growing parts of the world you and I have spoken many times and agree that AGOA needs reforms. As you've said, we must set high standards for our trading partners and ensure market access for American producers. I expect USTR to continue to engage with this committee to find a path forward for long-term renewal. President Trump set the stage for a roaring economy that helps workers achieve the American dream, with new reciprocal trade agreements, pro-growth tax relief in the working families' tax cuts, and slashing regulations. We must continue tearing down trade barriers that hurt American producers, farmers, and workers, and hold our trading partners accountable. I'm pleased to recognize the ranking member, Mister Nill, for his opening statement.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to, uh, acknowledge your admonishing the USTR's office for not getting that testimony into our hands at an appropriate moment. That's a basic legislative courtesy that we extend to each other here. So there's ample opportunity to review the testimony that has been submitted and a reminder that not only are we a co-equal branch of government, but this is the committee that establishes trade policy based on tax considerations. So I want to welcome you, uh, Ambassador Greer. If I were to ask today, what is America's trade policy, I don't think anybody would know. It's generally based upon pronouncements and chaos. It offends long-term allies. It's driven away some of our best friends. There's the argument in the morning, the retreat in the afternoon, and the declaration of victory in early evening. If we're upset with the outcome of an election in Brazil, then we put a tariff on Brazilian goods. If we're upset with our NATO allies, we threaten them with tariffs. Canada has moved away from us. I've never met anybody in my career that was upset with Canada. as a great friend of the United States. And yet, when we witness what has happened as Prime Minister Carney has made it clear that he no longer sees a future based upon hemispheric priorities for all of us, but instead he now will look more and more to Europe. The President's illegal use of emergency powers to impose these sweeping tariffs, they've been rejected by the courts. And yet the administration continues to reach for new pretexts to raise costs. Our the American people are feeling it, our allies, our industries, everybody is feeling these cost increases. What we're paying for gasoline, what we're paying in the marketplace, what people are paying for fertilizer, it is driving considerations that heretofore would have been resolved in an amicable fashion. This damage is not theoretical. Jobs have been lost, supply chains have been disrupted, and last year there was really very little growth in job opportunities for the American people with the exception of health care, which will be felt after the November elections as well as it relates to our hospitals. Families are paying more, now, and it looks like for weeks and months to come, and it is unlikely that despite the Supreme Court decision that the consumer will be given relief based upon the court striking down the President's tariff plans. Now, as I noted, sky-high gas prices, volatile volatile oil markets, and it is not based on economic fundamentals. It's the uncertainty that the administration insists on injecting into the global economy. The President campaigned on lowering prices, just as he campaigned on growing manufacturing and protecting our workers. Both promises have yet to be met. Putting a thumb in the eye of organized labor from every angle of the trade agenda. Let's review prices at the store that have gone since we last met, where they've gone since we've last met. Beef costs seventeen percent more, coffee's up twenty-six percent, vegetables a whopping forty-eight percent. This is not pocket change, Mr. Ambassador. This budget busting for so many occurs as they were already struggling to get by. And what has amounted to big numbers in the aggregate What we're essentially saying is that we've taken seventeen hundred dollars from the wallets of average Americans, billions siphoned off of pockets of the American people because of these higher prices, and the administration refuses to do anything other than to offer more chaotic pronouncements. Let's be clear. Tariffs can be a tool when used strategically and lawfully, and I've witnessed presidents using that with support from members of Congress. But what we've seen over the past year is neither. It's been scattershot, across the board approaches that punishes American consumers. It weakens our competitiveness and isolates us from indeed our best friends in the world. A trade war with the world was never going to end well, and to no one's surprise, it hasn't. The legal theory underpinning all of this has collapsed. The courts all the way to the Supreme Court have made clear that AIPA is not a blank check for this president nor any president. He can't declare an emergency emergency whenever it's politically convenient. and raise costs. It's not just the administration's actions, but the silence of our Republican colleagues. Republican parties, since I've been in this, with this committee, have always been for open markets and free trade, and I suspect privately they still are. These price hikes have cost us jobs, created economic uncertainty, and certainly, this inaction by our colleagues on the Republican side have contributed to this morass. The reality, as we threaten friends across the globe, soften threats to what we perceived in the past as it relates to Russia and oil prices, it's astounding how this is made up from day to day. United States can and should do better. Trade policy should be grounded in law. And in this committee there was a bipartisan tone to trade. It's being undermined even as we arrive here this morning. We need to rebuild the trust that is being damaged and restore the Congress' rightful role in reigning in executive authority. Any path forward starts with acknowledging what has gone wrong and recommending and recommitting to a trade policy that serves all members of the American family. With that, I yield back my time.

Thank you, ranking member. Today's sole witness is United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jameson Greer. The committee has received your written testimony and it will be made part of the formal formal hearing record. Ambassador Greer, you have five minutes to deliver your remarks, and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal. It's good to be here today. Uh, it's been a busy year. I'm looking forward to discussing how President Trump's trade policies bring fruit for American workers. Uh, I note your comments on the submission of the testimony and assure you that, uh, we we take that quite seriously and we'll ensure that that won't happen again. So thank you. Uh, as you know, President Trump inherited the largest trade deficit in human history, one point two trillion dollars annually. Between twenty twenty and twenty twenty four, the last year of the Biden administration, the US trade deficit in goods increased by over forty percent. The trade deficit deficit worsened every year by an average of nearly eight percent during that period. The result was a trade in domestic production picture that was moving in the wrong direction for American workers. Business sentiment for manufacturing had cratered, wallowing at negative six or seven percent for much of President Biden's last two years in office. After initial recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, manufacturing jobs under President Biden dropped from uh twelve point nine million in January twenty twenty three to twelve point six seven million in January twenty twenty five, a loss of two hundred and thirty thousand manufacturing jobs in just two years under President Biden. Our supply chain risk also grew as critical production remained reliant on foreign sources removed offshore. With the loss of domestic production, especially for food, prices remained high. Consider that in just four years President Trump's first term agricultural trade surplus had been replaced under Biden by the largest agricultural trade deficit in US history. Uh, these circumstances arising from our trade deficit and more broadly, our current account deficit represent a national emergency. And it's an emergency that Congress has recognized for decades. In the nineteen eighty-eight omnibus trade and competitiveness act, Congress made clear that, and I quote, "the principal negotiate and objective of the United States regarding current account surpluses is to develop rules to address large and persistent global current account imbalances of countries." including imbalances which threaten the stability of the international trading system, by imposing greater responsibility on such countries to undertake policy changes aimed at restoring current account equilibrium, including expedited implementation of trade agreements where feasible and appropriate. And that's exactly what the President has done. In response to our growing trade and current account deficits, in just one year, a combination of tariffs and deals has helped drive a reversal in these trends, since the introduction of the President's reciprocal trade program in April, twenty twenty-five, through February twenty-six, the latest available data, the U S trade deficit in goods decreased by twenty-four percent compared to the prior period. Uh, instead of an average eight percent, uh, increase, we've now started reversing the trade deficit. And as the, uh, chairman pointed out, a large part of this is attributed to reduced dependence on China. Our trade deficit in goods with China fell to two hundred billion in twenty twenty five, the lowest it's been since two thousand four. And China's share of total U S imports fell to about nine percent, the lowest it's been since China joined the WTO in two thousand one. The President's program has also driven manufacturing business sentiment well above the low level seen during the Biden years. Real manufacturing worker pay has increased by two thousand four hundred dollars in one year under President Trump after falling eight hundred and thirty dollars over the course of the Biden administration. Manufacturing productivity surged by two point four percent in the last quarter of twenty twenty five manufacturing wages increased by four point seven percent. In other words, the average American manufacturing worker is producing more goods and getting paid more to do so. there are nearly four hundred and forty thousand manufacturing job openings in the U. S., providing lots of opportunity uh for under and unemployed Americans uh to take jobs in the manufacturing sector. And in twenty twenty six, we have the first quarter of positive manufacturing job gains uh since a long-term trend uh that of decreases that started in twenty twenty three under President Biden. And we've seen that the capital goods used for production are skyrocketing uh during President Trump's term with orders exceeding four billion each month of the fourth quarter of twenty twenty five. These are levels not seen since before China's entry into the WTO. So we're seeing large uh demand for labor and manufacturing in the United States. As the Chairman pointed out, our agricultural community, one is one of the largest beneficiary of these policies with double digit growth in exports in twenty twenty-five for key commodities like corn and dairy and the ag trade deficit is finally falling again. Our service providers are benefiting from new market access. Um, we have negotiated a number of new trade agreements in a very short time. And since nineteen eighty-fifteen, United States negotiated fourteen free trade agreements in the last year alone. We concluded nine agreements on reciprocal trade and additional nine framework deals that will become agreements on reciprocal trade. It's no coincidence that following this blitz of deal-making, U. S. exports reached three hundred and two billion in January, twenty twenty-six, and three hundred and fifteen billion in February, twenty twenty-six, the highest monthly export figures in U. S. history. So when I hear people saying that trade isn't going well and we're exporting more than we've ever made before, and our workers are making more, uh, and pay- getting paid more to do it, uh, we know we - we have success. Uh, the entry of China into WTO in two thousand one cost this nation millions of jobs and tens of thousands in factories. One recent study found that the negative health outcomes for workers that lost their job to due to NAFTA outweighed any welfare gains associated with that trade deal. So as we move from the damaging trade policies of the past toward a global system of reciprocal and balanced trade uh my team and I, we consult with and will continue to consult with this committee, its staff and other members of Congress. We've held over a thousand briefings with members of Congress and their staff since the beginning of the administration on every aspect of our work. We intend to continue these robust consultations. I hope today we can have an honest conversation about the need for and value of this new direction of trade policy, something that's been years in the making and is long overdue. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. We'll now proceed to the question and answer session. I'll start with Mister Buchanan, the Vice Chair of the committee.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh for holding this hearing, I wanna thank Ambassador Greer for your leadership and your effort. I know you work on uh put a lot of energy and some focus and good vision on a lot of these things. For joining us here today, international trade is crucial to my state, Florida, as well as the broader US economy. In fact, nearly two hundred billion dollars in goods flow from Florida's airports and seaports each year. Furthermore, agriculture is a cornerstone of Florida's economy and how we regulate imports has a direct impact on the future of our domestic producers. I was proud to be the lead Republican on the trade subcommittee when we negotiated and passed USMC eight one point zero in two thousand nineteen, but think there is a lot more work that needs to be done in terms of moving forward. As we look uh ahead, it's important that we address areas where the agreement is not working as well as intended in turn for American producers. Uh couple of questions, Ambassador. One is, Ambassador Grier, we've talked about it a lot, it's Mexico uh gover- back government back growth in fruit and vegetables production has significantly increased, huge in uh compared to what Florida's been able to do. As I mentioned in a letter that I led to your office, I support seasonal tariff uh quotas to help level the playing field. Furthermore, your your section three O one investigation into Mexico's overcapacity and manufacturing would you consider expanding that uh review to include fruits and vegetables as well and I think we've talked about this before.

Uh thank thank you, sir. Uh w- we have spoken about this issue before, about seasonality. Obviously we wanna import uh fruits and vegetables when we don't make them, and seasons when we don't make them, and and that's

Yeah, let me just say in terms of trade, Yeah, let me just say in terms of trade, well I view it as kind of at the end of the day, well I'd view it as kind of at the end of the day, It should be somewhat fair, and our farmers have had some success, but they've just, the numbers are like five times greater or something like that. It's a huge thing. So I wanna talk to you more about that. Uh, unfortunately during the four years previous administration, we failed to secure new trade agreements and not, did not address the critical issues such as expanding markets, access for US comp uh companies. Well, I'm glad to see that President Trump has taken action over the last year. What more can we do as members It'd be, I think, as someone mentioned, we need to be, for a lot of reasons, more engaged. I think we'd end up at the end of the day a better product. And I think that's critically important. Uh, what's your thoughts?

Well, as, as Chairman Smith pointed out, uh, he signaled his, his robust support for the tariffs that the president's imposing. All of these wins we're talking about, all the, you know, dairy from California that's gonna go overseas, all the fruits and vegetables from, from Florida and other places that are gonna go to foreign markets, all this new access, It is not due to moral suasion. It's not due to other countries just wanting to do us a solid. That's not what it's about. It's because President Trump said, " I'm going to protect our markets, and I'm going to make sure that if you have access to the U S market, you give us effective access." It's just reciprocity. That's all it is. But we have to have support from Congress on this, uh, on this matter. We need to make sure that we can be able to use this leverage appropriately to have fair market access.

Yeah, and let me just say, you touched on trade deficit I think it was one point three trillion wasn't it when the President came in

one point two sir yes

yeah one point two trillion it is what what is it today

so if you look at at at the end of calendar year it was about of twenty twenty five it was about the same but if you look at since we imposed tariffs in April to February if you compare it it's gone down by about twenty four percent the trade deficit includes

yeah and let me just say in terms of trade at the end of the day it needs to be somewhat fair I get back to my earlier point I see a lot of our countries we work with, we got good relationships with, but the trade deficits are monstrous.

Yeah.

I some of the smaller countries they that's one thing, but some of the big countries um and it I don't wanna rattle them all off, but there's a lot of them that really do take advantage of uh t uh of us. And I just think at the end of the day they need to buy, if we're buying uh a bunch of cars from them or whatever we're buying, they need to be buying our beef and other things. It needs to be fair at the end of the day, that's how I look at it. Uh, it needs to be a win-win. It hasn't been, but we need to c- c- continue to move in this direction. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Neal.

Thanks, Chairman. Uh, thanks to House Democrats, the Supreme Court ruled what most of the trade community already knew, and I suspect the USTR's office knew as well, and that's that the, uh, EPA tariffs were indeed unconstitutional. Now, President Trump owes refunds to everyone who has paid the tariffs. It's going to be interesting to find out how that plays out for sure. These refunds should be issued automatically without the need for bureaucratic red tape, and I'm anxious to find out how the consumer is going to receive their refunds. Thanks to Representative Horsford for having the foresight to introduce the Relief Act, for he knew that this administration would slow walk and maybe deny what is rightfully owed to the American consumer. Report after report it's confirmed that the average American family has paid over seventeen hundred dollars more last year because of the tariffs. These families need to be compensated, like what Representative Thompson has outlined in his Eagle Illegal Tariffs Act. But instead, of course correcting to the tariff approach, the administration is trying to reinstate IPA tariffs with indeed a flimsy pretext. American families are struggling under the administration's trade agenda. Gas prices have gone through the roof, fertilizer has gone through the roof. and all the food that we eat and consume has gotten more expensive and about to get even worse. Mister Ambassador, can you commit today to let the section one twenty-two tariffs expire without adding new tariffs?

Uh, Breaking Member Neal, thank you, thank you for your comments. The the President, he is, his trade policy has not changed. He's not gonna go back to the old situation where we had no tariffs and we just let foreign goods made by foreign workers come in without any fee to the detriment of domestic workers. Uh, I know that Democrat attorneys general and Democrats here, they want to have that system. They want to have a system where there's no tariffs and all this stuff just comes in. Um, but we're not going to have that, so the president will continue to have tariffs using appropriate legal tools.

Thanks, Mister Ambassador, I think you know that we don't want that sort of a structure. Our position is that selected tariffs at certain intervals, based on perhaps steel dumping in the Midwest, that's an appropriate measure. to embrace the tariff. What we see as a chaotic nature of not liking a presidential election in Brazil as becoming a substitute for sensible trade policy. That's what our objections are and that's the scrutiny that we've added. But the two of us have a good history on USMCA. And we're both, I think, indeed very proud of what was accomplished. I'm hearing, you say publicly, that we are unlikely to extend that agreement by July first, the deadline. And it doesn't look as though the Canadians are receptive to some of the overtures that are being made, if at all. We're proud of this economic relationship and it looks like from here we are not gonna meet the deadline. Can you commit to us today that you will work directly with our committee to ensure that USMCA where needed can be strengthened and extended as we envisioned with a at the time what President Trump called best trade agreement in the history of the world. By the way, just a few months later he called it the worst trade agreement in the history of the world. So again, it's back to that chaotic uh approach. But this is a big deal for America. Can we get your views on it?

Uh, yes, sir, and and certainly I'm going to continue working with you and the committee on USMCA renewal, renegotiation, uh, and the like. Uh, I don't think we wanna rubber-stamp it. Uh, the idea is, and this was baked into the agreement on purpose, that there would come a time when you would want to either renew it without change, or go into a period, uh, where you could renegotiate elements of it. I think there are load-bearing pillars in USMCA that we don't think about a lot, because they work they work well, right? Um, but there are things that were pointed out like, like Chairman Smith where third countries are bringing content into Canada or Mexico and bringing it into the US to the detriment of our workers. Those things we have to change. In our discussions in Mexico this week, we've been focused on rules of origin, we've been focused on economic security, we've been talking about sectors that we need to re-short to North America and to the United States. So we look forward to working with you on the - all of these topics.

Actually, uh, uh, to recall for new members of the committee, a reminder that that trade agreement was endorsed by the American Chamber of Commerce the AFL CIO and the Teamsters Union. Hundred ninety-five Democrats voted for USMCA, and a hundred ninety-four Republicans voted for USMCA. a remarkable feat given the polarization that has surrounded trade in recent years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Um, Ambassador Greer, I uh n- I know the Trump administration's working to to insure our trade policies, our America first, and benefit the US workers, manufacturers and farmers. I've had, like I mentioned in my opening statement, I've had multiple manufacturers, um, actually I see one in this room, that has talked to me about their concerns of their competitors in Canada and also in Mexico um by having a competitive advantage because they're getting all the component parts for the same engines that they try to put together here in the United States but they have to pay tariffs on them but all of these companies that are competing with them in Canada are not having to pay on their tariffs And so, this is an issue that if we really want to focus on manufacturing and investment of manufacturing in the United States, we need to make sure our people are treated fairly or better, um, than than people who live in other countries. So, assuming the issue is on your radar, and I know it is, um, what what is the administration prepared to do to keep those manufacturing jobs here and close the loopholes in USMCA that might provide incentives to ship jobs out of the united states

thank you mister chairman so one thing if if you look at what's happened over the past few months mexico has taken some important steps to help get at this issue there's much more to do mexico on its own has decided to raise tariffs on certain products from china and vietnam and certain other economies and this is because mexico itself understands that it needs to be better aligned with the United States on trade policy to avoid the kinds of issues you're talking about, to avoid subsidized products coming in from Asia and elsewhere and undermining the North American market. So Mexico has already taken steps on this issue. We need to adjust the rules of origin in the f- in Trump's first term working with this committee, we adjusted rules of origin for automobiles, and that drove more investment in automotive production in the United States. We need to take that same model and we need to take it to other goods as well, uh, to make sure that rules of origin are robust and strong, to make sure that our manufacturers have an incentive and a comparative advantage relative to others.

So is Canada making any of those changes that Mexico has? Because one of the the manufacturers I see in this room, in fact, his direct competitors are the Canadians, and it comes to defense, um, defense equipment. So are the Canadians playing by the rules there?

So, so, uh, you know a a little bit on steel they they've done this but overall they've indicated that they want to uh be trading more they wanna have more trade agreements with more countries they're doubling down on globalization what we're trying

Mm-hmm.

to correct for the problems of globalization so those are two models that don't fit together very well uh i have had i've had conversations with canadians who are in regular contact uh and we've talked about these issues again there'd have to be a rule of origin uh put in place and if the canadians don't wanna have the rule of origin then we'll have to have

Yeah, this is a huge priority of mine, especially in looking at the review of USMCA. I wanna make sure under all circumstances, US manufacturers are treated the same or better than other other manufacturers in Canada or Mexico or China or wherever they're at. Um, so I appreciate your work there. I've made it clear that we need a long-term reauthorization of of the African Growth and Opportunity Act trade preference um program. AGOA is America first and vital to our national security interests. Uh it strengthens our critical supply chains and helps America counter the spreading global influence of Russia and China. China is quickly moving to corner Africa's vast critical mineral reserves that have never been more important to our economic security. Without AGOA, America is handing adversarial nations a free pass to make even further gains on that continent. Ambassador Greer, this committee has worked to build bipartisan support for a long-term reauthorization of Agoa. We secured a one-year extension in February, but we can and must do better. Um, this committee passed passed out a three-year bipartisan renewal. Of course, it was moved down to a year. Um, we stand ready to work with your your agency and others to bring AGOA into the twenty-first century that will require your agency though prioritizing this work in partnership with us um will you commit to to helping secure a long-term reauthorization of AGOA by the end of this year and what length of reauthorization have you discussed with the president?

Um, so, Mister Chairman, we do commit to working with you for a multi-year authorization, I don't have a specific number yet, we can talk about that. Uh, our agency very shortly will be circulating a federal register notice to solicit views and input from the public on how we can improve AGOA to meet the goals that you and I share. Uh, when we look back at twenty years of AGOA, at the end of - at the end of that twenty year period, China was the largest, uh, beneficiary of African trade. So something wasn't working with AGOA. So we want to improve it. I'm glad to know there's bipartisan support. This past week I met with presidents and prime ministers and trade ministers from Mauritius, Madagascar, Nigeria and elsewhere. So this is something that is at the top of our agenda and I think there is a real opportunity to work together to create a longer-lasting uh you know, more reciprocal AGOA.

It's great to hear that. Um, the Trump administration has been mounting a strong effort to open markets for American agriculture, including securing Cambodia's agreement to drop its tariffs on American farm products to zero, Japan's commitment to purchase eight billion dollars in U. S. agriculture goods and Taiwan's agreement to eliminate tariffs on ninety-four percent of such goods unfortunately the farming communities I represent in southeast Missouri continue to face significant challenges. Farm economy is in a very, very bad place, including with the rise in fertilizer prices. Um, what more is the administration considering when it comes to addressing concerns faced by our farmers and ranchers, and is the administration still consider considering utilizing tariff revenue to provide targeted support for American agriculture?

So we we are very aware of uh the in input cost issue and uh you know, fertilizer prices skyrocketing of the Biden administration, um and but they still haven't come down enough. in our view, and I think we we probably all share that view. Uh, under the Biden administration, there was an initiative started to allocate money to uh smaller fertilizer producers. That was never acted upon. The USDA is now actively going through applicants of that program to see if there are opportunities uh for m- for more fertilizer producers to get into the game. We know that there's some concentration in the fertilizer industry, so bringing in more and smaller producers can be helpful. Um, we're also committed to permitting reform and regulatory reform. We have - we have fertilizer producers in the United States who wanna open new mines or - or - or new uh processes but they're slowed down by a regulatory process that we're - that we're speeding up uh so these are things that are very important to us. And we want to ha- we want to make sure that the domestic fertilizer we make in the US, which is actually very robust, we make a lot here, we wanna make sure that that is uh supported and enhanced and that we can continue to get what we need from overseas as well.

Um, uh, under President Trump's strong leadership, the United States has achieved many, many trade wins in the digital sector, um, including compelling Canada to drop its plan to impose a digital services tax against American businesses. Unfortunately, trade barriers impacting digital service providers continue to grow, as Canada, the EU, EU member states, most notably France, and other countries continue to impose DS_D_s or other digital measures that discriminate against American innovators. This Congress will not stomach other nations using discriminatory taxes, fees, or regulations to target American businesses, and we will advance legislation to combat such efforts if necessary. Ambassador Greer, you have said that USTR may launch section three O one investigations into digital issues. When can we expect to see those coming and and will there be a focus on any particular economies, such as the EU, Korea, Australia and Canada? And will the investigations cover country-specific measures, like DSTs or restrictions on on-line streaming providers?

Thank you, Chairman. This is an area where we're quite focused. Uh, the United States has a competitive advantage that we've developed because of the great innovation we have and that we incentivize here in the United States. Uh, our digital trade companies have been some of the most effective and most competitive in the world. Uh, and we wanna make sure that other countries, uh, don't discriminate against these companies, that they don't unduly burden them, that they don't use them as a cash cow. Uh, so we have certain, you know, section three O one um, you know, potential actions in draft, uh, the reality is we wanna see outcomes in these countries, whether it's the European Union, uh, you know, Australia, Korea, or - or member states within the European Union, we want to see outcomes there. It's not a situation where you wanna, you know, do a three O one and have tariffs just for tariffs' sake or something. We wanna make sure we have outcomes. I have the European Union Trade Commissioner coming this Friday, and this is on my agenda to talk to him about. I met with the French Finance Minister last week. Uh, they had they there was a proposal in France to move the digital services taxes up to six percent and they they held off they did not act on that we don't like what they have in place but but we've helped prevent that um so we we do have these tools in our tool kit uh we expect to use them if we need to we're trying to reach negotiated outcomes uh but we'll use them if we need to.

Thank you, Ambassador. Mister Doggett.

Mister Greer, uh for most of last year trade was just a part-time job for you. Uh, as you recall, uh, shortly after President Trump fired a respected career ethics officer who had just been confirmed by the Senate for a five-year appointment, you took over as director of the, uh, Office of Government Ethics. Uh, you also served as head of the office's special counsel. So for much of last year you were really juggling, uh, three different normally Senate-confirmed positions, were you not?

That's correct.

And you were in charge of the ethical standards for this administration just after President Trump had fired the public watchdogs, the inspector generals at seventeen federal agencies and had emptied out the staff of the ethics office. One of your many responsibilities there as the top eth- ethics director uh was to monitor compliance of senior leaders throughout uh not only the White House but the federal government. In your tenure, did you find anyone in the administration out of compliance?

So, so during my short tenure at at OGE, uh, I

That was almost half a year, right?

I I authorized I authorized the career staff there, non-political staff, to operate the agency, and I didn't interfere in anything. I didn't find any, uh, ethical issues, nor did they bring anything to my attention.

Thanks. Well, let me ask you one that relates specifically to trade. Last October, when you finalized an agreement to dramatically lower

I don't have any familiarity with any Trump organization deals.

Just don't know about it. Did your office conduct any ethics review or conflict of interest analysis

No.

uh before or during these Vietnam negotiations, given the simultaneous Trump organization efforts to get fast-track for its golf course.

So I was not in charge of OGE in October, uh and we don't we don't review individual real estate deals.

You were in charge of tr- you were in charge of trade, so the fact that uh there was public attention,

Correct.

there were actions taken by the Vietnamese government to speed this up, that was just not a factor for you at all.

So I I mean having a twenty percent tariff on Vietnam is not really seen as doing a favor for Vietnam as a general matter,

Well, cutting it from forty-six to twenty percent may be considered a favor by some,

sir.

And of course this is just just one of many uh examples.

If you wanna go back up, sir, I'd

Uh, you're also familiar with the fact that Swiss industry chiefs visited the Oval Office, gave the president a gold bar worth over a hundred thousand dollars and a Rolex clock. And just after that, the uh the tariffs for the Swiss fell from thirty-nine percent to fifteen percent. Uh, let me ask you uh about uh the what you told me last year about the way the trade office operated when you were chief of staff at USTR. Uh, and that was my concern about tariff exemptions and a number that were granted. Because as you know, the government accountability office uh showed uh from its analysis of the exemptions that were granted during the first term, consider fav considerable favoritism to those who have been Republican donors. Uh, I ask you if that could happen again, if somebody just kind of sauntered up to the table at Mar-a-Lago and got And your answer was quote, " No exemptions pair the president," end quote. That of course has not been the case. And while there's not a formalized process, there have been a number of exemptions that have been granted. Uh, the process seems to have simply shifted from where there was a public process where the data could be analyzed to one where these favors and gifts uh are not made public. Uh, did your monitoring as the chief ethics officer include insider trading?

Um, I can I can talk to the career staff at OGE. I didn't personally, uh, monitor any of this.

Well, you were the director. Did it include betting and prediction markets?

I can check with the office of OGE.

Yes, well, you you got a request from Senator Schiff and, uh, Gallego to determine whether Trump and the members of his family were using insider information about tariffs, uh, to profit. Uh, did you take any action about that?

Oh, I didn't. I'd refer you to the office of the general of OGI for that.

Well, you were in charge of it. You, that was one of your principal responsibilities there. As you know, the president one time boasted that a friend had made two and a half billion dollars off the market reversal concerning tariffs. Uh, but none of that, uh, involved you in in doing ethical evaluation.

That's correct.

Uh, have you put any safeguards into effect to ensure that the administration does not continue to profit from the sudden ups and downs in tariffs and in the market.

So I'd I'd run the office of OGE when we do trade negotiations. There are a million factors that go into it, dealing with foreign countries,

I'm sure there are.

uh et cetera. And so these are not uh

Are you uh do you disagree with the uh estimate from both Forbes and the New York Times that since Mister Trump has been in office his net worth has increased by about one point four billion dollars in one year?

I don't know what the president's net worth is. I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Ambassador. I know you have been very busy. I know that, uh, you're getting some things done. I appreciate that. It kind of reminds me of, uh, John Madden's quote of " dogs don't bark at parked cars". And, uh, it reminds me that I think the Biden trade agenda was the park, not just the parked car, but the car with flat tires and, and the spare tire was probably fat, flat too. So, uh, I, uh, you know, you and I have had good conversations, uh, we - we share, uh, different perspectives, and - and I appreciate the fact that we can have a - a good conversation and I think, uh, arrive at a way forward that is good for America. And as you know, I represent, uh, a large, uh, swath of American agriculture. I'm very proud of that. But I know that, uh, you've been busy advocating for farmers, ranchers, service providers, manufacturers, and that Expanding market access, protecting intellectual property, and combating anti-competitive practices are not simple tasks. I don't have to tell you that. But, uh, uh, I believe that you have demonstrated your commitment to delivering. I appreciate that. Beyond negotiating nine agreements on reciprocal trade, conducting section three O one investigations, and securing past due commitments from current free trade agreement partners, you've also kicked off the six year review of USMCA. As you know, uh, uh, like I mentioned, My district leads a country in agricultural production. In two thousand twenty-five, Nebraska exported over one point six billion dollars in agricultural products to Canada and Mexico alone. The USMCA review provides a unique opportunity to take stock of the North American trade relationship in ensuring any concerns are addressed. So my my first question here, we know that the dispute settlement mechanism is is particularly valuable in USMCA. I I was disappointed to see how long it took on the biotech corn um dispute with Mexico, but ultimately we prevailed, and I'm happy to say, on all those various factors. So I was just wondering if you uh what you might be thinking about the dispute settlement mechanism as you enter into discussions with Mexico and Canada, and there are there opportunities to make it more efficient.

Thank you uh Chairman Smith. So so yes, I think there are opportunities to make it more efficient. I think you can put in rules to speed things along. uh, rules to make sure no one can block a, a, you know, selected arbitrators on a panel and that kind of thing. Uh, I think even more important than making sure that the mechanism works is making sure that we have the political will to actually enforce the agreement. I think under the Biden administration, uh, we saw, you know, slow and limited enforcement. Uh, there were our energy companies had a lot of problems in Mexico during that time and eventually consultations were started but no case was ever brought. So I I think you have to, you know, make sure the mechanism works. I think the bones for it are there and we can do some things to make it more efficient, but you have to have the political will as well, and Mexico and Canada have to understand that we will act if they don't honor their commitments.

Thank you. Uh, separately, I know the administration has recognized that there are some products that simply cannot be produced in the US uh and under the IEPA tariffs, those products were placed on what's called the NX two list. When the administration imposed tariffs under section one twenty-two after

Well, uh, section three O one, Section three O one. there's an ongoing investigation. There's an ongoing investigation. So So I I don't wanna prejudge it, but what I will say is at a certain point we will release our findings, if we think responsive action is needed in the form of tariffs or something else. We'll communicate that to the public. We'll have a comment period. People can then comment on, you know, do they think certain things should be out, should be in, et cetera, and we'll take that into consideration.

OK. Well, I appreciate that. And and again, uh, I I know that there are many points that we can celebrate of where you have very diligently gotten other countries, I think uh clearly uh these concessions would not have have been made by other countries without the pressure to do so. And uh especially other countries wanting to shut out our high quality, affordable, agricultural products. And as the Chairman pointed out, uh US agriculture is hurting and uh that when we can see uh advances made in our trade policy where other significant markets buy more American products, uh, I think the world is better off. And, uh, given our efficiencies, certainly, uh, we want to bring, uh, more prosperity to U. S. agriculture. So, thank you. I yield back.

Mister Thompson.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman, for having the hearing. And I'd like to submit a number of, uh, articles and documentation, uh, for the record, all of which will support some things that I'm gonna talk about and questions that I'm going to ask and and I'm glad that you got your um information from the Trade Ambassador at seven last night. We didn't get ours till ten last night. Um, Mister Ambassador, thank you for being here. I I've got a couple of uh questions of w- to start with that I I think they I think you can answer them yes or no. Um, the first one, is the President personally involved in setting trade policy for the United States?

Yes, he is.

Is the president a proponent of tariffs?

He is.

And was Liberation Day the president's idea?

Uh, the president made this choice. He had a lot of options. That's what he wanted to do.

Well, thank you. I just for the record, I want to establish that Liberation Day or the plan to set tariffs on every country except Russia is in fact a signature trade decision by this administration. And, Mr. Ambassador, A strong manufacturing base is critical for our economic and our national security. And under this administration, we've lost a hundred thousand manufacturing jobs. And um, that information is what I, is documented by the information I just submitted for the record. Uh, and it's important to note that notwithstanding your earlier comments, uh, under the previous administration, we created seven hundred thousand uh manufacturing uh jobs. The manufacturing job growth under the former administration was because of some great work that we did in this committee, uh, in part, uh, chips and science act, the inflation reduction act, uh, my legislation for, uh, to establish tax credits for, uh, renewable energy production, the bipartisan infrastructure law. Uh, w- we - we had a role in all of that and it was, uh, it - it led to a successful manufacturing job growth. And after decades of manufacturing losses, the former administration created these manufacturing jobs, and the current administration is has killed that progress. As the representative of one of the most productive agricultural districts in our country, I've seen firsthand the perseverance, the ingenuity, and the grit of American farmers. But sadly, fertilizer prices is up are up, fuel prices are up, farm debt increased in uh twenty twenty five, and it's forecasted uh to increase again in twenty twenty six. And farm debt is higher today than at any point since the nineteen seventies, even higher than the farm crisis of the nineteen eighties. And last year farm bankruptcies raised by forty six percent. And again, that information is all in what I uh documented by what I uh uh put into the the record. You know, Mister Ambassador, uh Canada uh in twenty twenty four was the largest export market for US wine. And in response to this administration's trade policies, along with his um talk about uh fifty first making Canada a fifty first state, wine exports to Canada fell seventy-eight percent. They fell thirty-five percent globally because of the trade policy that we're trying to struggle through. Uh, emergency agricultural assistance to specialty crop producers in my district has been zero. The same in California, zero. And specialty crop producers in America, zero. agricultural producers are being crushed by these high fuel prices, the high input prices, crushing debt, closed foreign markets, and intense cop- uh competition from foreign competitors. American farmers and ranchers didn't cause this problem, yet they're paying the price for the s- this administration's uh decisions. Mister Ambassador, consumers paid more for groceries and other goods because of this administration's tariff. As has already been pointed out, about seventeen hundred dollars a year have been extracted from uh the family uh uh pocketbook across the country. As Mister Neal mentioned, I have legislation uh to make sure that in refunding the tariffs collected under the illegal tariffs, that those moneys are refunded to the people who paid them, uh American consumers and not sucked up by corporations uh who pass them on to consumers. And I'd like to get a commitment from you, Mister uh Ambassador, to work with me in my office to make sure that we're able to get that money back to the consumers who paid it. Can't hear you.

Customs and Border Protection is is on it, and they have a portal that's been open for a few days.

So you'll work with us to make sure that we get this to the right people?

Uh, customs and border protection, yes, sir.

Thank you very much. You're back.

Thank you, Mister Kelly.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. Mister Ambassador, thanks for being here today, just to clear the record a little bit because, uh, there's a book called " Rules for Radicals" that, I mean, it kind of fits in. So if you do something wrong, you always blame the other side for doing it. So, I keep hearing about inflation and I think that sometimes we forget that the high inflation was really on June thirteenth, two thousand twenty-two. for gasoline it was over five dollars a gallon so as much as would like to blame the disruption in global supplies that are uh taking place right now today it actually without anything going on in the world other than watching the price rise uh we were ok with that there was not a not too much said about it other than if you were the guy paying for the gas um so inflation inflation until uh january uh twentieth of of two thousand twenty five uh, we changed it from inflation to affordability. So you could have double-digit inflation and you just go along with it because that's just the way things go but once President Trump was uh was sworn into office, then it became, well, things aren't affordable. I said, well, no kidding, when did you shop, start shopping, the twenty-first of Jan- January or were you actually shopping ahead of time? So this Who Struck John stuff really pays, doesn't do anything to help our our fellow Americans and uh we've watched the loss of jobs and everything else happen over the years. Now, One of the questions I wanted to ask you is have we seen an acceleration of Chinese investment into North America especially in the automobile industry, which I'm very, very close to. China's intent is not fair competition, never has been. China's goal is not to compete in the US market, but instead to hollow it out and ultimately limit consumer choice to Chinese brands. Now, such investments pose a significant economic and national security risk to US commerce, as goods can be transhipped through Mexico and into heavily integrated supply chains which enjoy preferential treatment under the USMCA. So as President Trump prepares to head to Beijing for a summit with presidency next month and engagement around the two thousand twenty-six USMCA joint review picks up how is USTR approaching its evaluation of Chinese investment in the in North America and I would just point out to people. It would be nice if America, you know, we saved the world several times and then because these people were devastated we

Uh, I I think everyone knows that no one has been more clear-eyed on the challenge posed by the by China, the economic challenge and national security challenge, uh then President Trump. Uh this is why he put tariffs on China in the first term, including on Chinese automobiles. Uh it's why he pioneered uh rules on information and communication technology to make sure that vehicles that have um, that there was a regime so the vehicles that have technology from China in them can't can't be used in the United States. And uh as the chairman mentioned before, one of the things that President Biden did is he those tariffs in place. And he used those rules, uh, to make sure that we're protected from this concern. And so when we go to China next month, uh, we will be trying to have a proactive agenda and talk about areas where we should be trading, areas where we should be selling to them, and - and we should - we can be buying from them. These are area- these are nonsensitive goods. That's where we're gonna focus our conversations.

Yep. Uh, well, I - I think we've - we've all watched this for so long. I - I don't know of a more generous nation in the world than America, and as I said earlier, Anytime anything goes wrong anywhere in the world, it's always America that shows up first. If it's some kind of a disaster, some kind of an imbalance, whatever it is, we're always the first one to put our wealth and our, the lives of men and women. We, we go and try to help everybody that we can help anytime they're out there. I've, well, just been appalled by the way the rest of the world has treated us and that when it comes time that we actually would work with each other to get there, these non-tariff trade barriers have, have shut us out. I can tell you from being in the automobile industry, Uh, and I do handle cars that are made in South Korea. I've been to South Korea many times. Please try to go to South Korea at any time and try to find a Chevy or a Ford or a Ram. Try to find any of those on the roads there. You'll find out that those are very hard to find. And the problem is non-tariff trade barriers. There's much as I love the Korean people, uh, and the fact that they should love us because I think in the early fifties that we were the first responders to get there and and help them out. Um, I've just always noticed that the rest of the world always treats us like we don't have to worry about everything. The yanks are gonna be okay. Don't worry about them. You don't have to trade with them. You can keep them out of your markets. But if you get in trouble, pick up the phone and give them a call. They'll be the first responders. I really appreciate what you're doing. It is a tough, tough job. So thank you. Any way we can help you, please let us know.

Thank you, Mr. Larson.

Thank you, Mr. uh, Chairman and uh, Mr. Ambassador. Welcome uh to the uh committee. Uh I wanna associate myself with the remarks of uh Leader Neal and also uh bring attention to um unfortunately uh words matter and our President still hasn't clarified, even as we watch as the clock still ticks on the elimination of an entire civilization. Uh, he also has called affordability a scam. I assure you that it's not a scam to the vendors that I represent in my district in Hartford, including uh, Restaurant Owner Enrique Enrique Rodriguez, who told me that his food costs were up by as much of as forty percent. He hadn't seen a profit in six months because he refuses to pass on those costs to consumers. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record an article from the C- Connecticut Public, uh, Radio, entitled, uh, Latino Restaurants in Hartford reckon with tariffs as SCOTUS considers case. That tells the story, I believe.

Without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh. Don't get me wrong, uh, Mr. Ambassador. Tariffs, uh, can be important, they can be an important tool, uh, in helping to address trade abuses by other countries and leveling the playing field for American wor workers, but that's not what the President is doing. His policies have resulted in the loss of more than a hundred thousand of manu- ma- American manufacturing jobs, and he is openly hostile to American labor and workers. That's why I'm a proud supporter of ranking member Sanchez's bill to stop these disastrous Trump tariffs and require Congress to vote before new tariffs can go into effect. And that's the key issue here. in the legislative brand of branch of government is requiring a vote, as is required by the Constitution, something the President seems that he is above the law and doesn't have to follow. And whether it's declaring war or ignoring the role of Congress with respect to setting tariffs. Uh, Ambassador Greer, uh, during an interview yesterday on CNBC, President Trump said of tariff refunds, "we're giving a lot of money back to people that hate our country." Ambassador Greer, especially with uh America's two hundred and fifty years uh approaching that celebration, do you agree with the President? that small businesses applying for refunds they're owed from the presidency of legal tariffs on taxes hate our country?

So the terrorists were very effective at a, at keeping out foreign goods made by foreign workers. And the money, a lot of it is going back to actually foreign companies, US subsidiaries here. We know there are small businesses who are unfortunately

So none of our, none of, none of our

dependent on China for their supply chains and we don't like that.

That's the question is, do you, do you Do you think that uh these uh these people hate their country?

Oh, of course not.

Our our our

Small businesses don't hate our country, but we don't want them dependent on China. We'd much rather buy American.

We don't want them independent on China either, w- but we do want them to get the refunds for something that has been burdensome for them and placed on their backs, and has hurt them as it did Enrique Riquet. Uh, and so it's uh

Well, they can apply on the portal and get what they're due.

Well, I I I thank you for your uh your testimony uh before us, but I uh hope you're able to convey to the President that uh whether it's war or whether it's tariffs, he needs to come before the United States Congress. And we need a vote. It's not even a question of equal branches of government, because in the view of the founders The First Amendment in Article one cedes that responsibility to the legislative branch of government. And with that, I yield back.

Mister Schweiker.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mister Ambassador, um, a and some of this is outside your ultimate authority, but um you have the overarching information. Um, so congratulations. Uh, my understanding is over the last year or so, we've cut the trade deficit with China, By almost half. But I'm looking at some of the underlying data in regards to, you know, hundred and fifty percent increase with Taiwan, um, thirty some percent increase with Vietnam. And, and I just, I want either some reassurance or more data, and this is more of a question for my joint economic team than even the Ways and Means team, as we've been trying to analyze the numbers. Is there a chance some of that is just sudden productivity capacity that's popped up in those countries, or some of that transhipment, relabeling, misclassification, um, has China been moving some of its manufacturing capacity out of the country to neighbors? It it just helping us sort of understand that movement because it is in the numbers and making sure that as a from a policy standpoint we're watching that. Um, h- you know, help help me on what the success you've had on China, but also the fact that some of the neighboring countries that we're much friendlier with, their numbers have really spiked.

Uh, yes, we watch this very closely. Uh, because we know that Chine- there's always been a transshipment issue with China, certainly other countries. W- when we, when we look at our trade deficit in goods, we are, we are looking starting at in April, because that's when the president put his uh program into place in the in the months in the run-up there was a a lot of people importing right and and and trying to beat the tariffs

mmm yeah and there was uh and look we all

right but but but if you look from april twenty twenty six to february twenty twenty five to february twenty twenty six

and and

the most recent data available and you compare it to the prior year period so this is for the whole world the deficit went down by twenty four percent

yeah

so so it is going down we do think there is some transit from china we also know that taiwan makes a lot of our you know ai chips and other things and we're trying to restore as much of that as possible So at least a spike in Taiwan is because of that.

It would be real interesting just uh uh it's not a criticism, it's just sort of understanding,

Yeah.

you know, what is um reshoring of manufacturing to neighboring countries, what is potentially. It would help us also when we work with customs to know, hey, you got some mislabeling um or stamping that's they're they're gaming things. Um this is more for one if you could ask one of your staff at some point to talk to one of my economists. Um, we are trying to rebuild, um, in and out trade deficit numbers and trying to also do the calculations on what was gold. You know, because we had the unusual spike and just so we c- we're operating with baseline numbers. The third thing that I really care a lot about this, and you may be one of the only people, you know, in the administration who also sees it. The rest of the world using a refundable VAT tax, value-added tax. has a structural tax arbitrage that puts us, you know, genetically I'm a free trader, but so much of the industrialized world does a refund to the VAT tax when they sell us something, yet when we send them something, they put it on, and that's like an, an, I think the average is what, like eighteen, eighteen and a half points? Is it appropriate to start thinking about a a trade policy that says we're free traders but we want equal treatment in the tax world and something that actually is permanent. So it will there'll be a legacy of building a more robust but a much fairer trading system for the United States.

Well, well, no one will probably ever accuse me of being a free trader, for sure. But, um, I I think you know, in twenty seventeen, if if we had done a border adjustment tax, I I think it would have gone a long way to rectify this discrepancy you're talking about.

And I and I compliment you for y- you've gone way up in my ranking of intellect for knowing that.

OK. Probably started low down. But but I I will say, you know, the United States has tried to to fix this discrepancy before. In the eighties and nineties we had the FISC and the DISC.

Mm-hmm.

We tried to do these things. And guess who said we couldn't do it? The World Trade Organization said we couldn't do it. So this is part of the reason why the global trading system is challenging for us. The president's tariffs, you know, he's had a ten percent baseline. It's a little bit of a proxy for border adjustment tax. You can think of it that way.

Yeah.

Um, so I agree with you. I'm open to discussions on that.

I just, it just, we've built some models saying if you, if you actually would equalize that refundable VAT tax, and we need to in some ways do something like that for our own manufacturers, so we can export to the world and against that, arbitrage that crushes so many of our manufacturers who are trying to sell to the world. It's just, we'd love to work with you on this.

I, I agree with you.

And with, Mr. Chairman, yield back.

Thank you. Um, Miss Sanchez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, um, Ambassador Greer, are prices on consumer goods lower today than they were a year ago?

Let me get out my data.

Can you do it quickly, cuz I have limited time?

Oh, OK. Well, for some of them they are for sure.

You know

Uh, some are still coming down from the nine percent inflation rate.

No, the question was are they lower or higher today than they were a year ago.

So other ideas are high then. If you exclude energy, yes.

Prices are lower, really, because as a working mom who grocery shops every week, I have seen prices go up and up and up. And you can try to spin it any way you want, but I think consumers unil unanimously agree that President Trump has failed on his promise to bring down costs. Gas prices are at an all-time high with his war in Iran, health care is getting more expensive, and Trump's chaotic on-again, off-again tariffs have led to an affordability crisis. The Supreme Court recently struck down the president's unconstitutional tariffs, and despite that ruling, I'm concerned that American families are still going to continue to face higher prices. They were forced to pay more than a hundred and sixty-five billion dollars for Trump's illegal tariffs. that the court struck down. Um, this week companies started to apply to get this money back in tariff refunds, yet the refunds leave out most working families. Over the last year, companies raised prices and they passed the cost of those tariffs on to the customers. Lower in- lower income families who spend a larger portion of their paycheck on essentials have been forced to absorb the higher costs on everyday goods, at the grocery store and housing. You've said that companies should give their tariff refunds back to the workers as bonuses or raises, but it's not just the workers of these companies that deserve a refund. Do you think the American people who have been paying higher prices because of these illegal tariffs deserve to be paid back too?

Uh, I I I reject the premise of this. When you look at things like eggs,

I I take it

it's gone down by forty-five percent,

I take it that they are.

smartphones down by fourteen percent.

That's not the question that I asked. The question that I ask is do you think the American people who have been paying higher prices because of the illegal tariffs should be paid back also.

Miss Sanchez,

Simple yes or no.

they they they haven't been paying higher prices because of these tariffs. These tar-

I I I get

wages have outpaced inflation all year long.

Sir, I have limited time.

All year long.

I have limited time. I'm not gonna argue about that because I think most Americans can feel the higher prices. But the question is, do you think consumers deserve to be compensated for that? If you don't, just say no and we'll move on.

The Democrat attorneys general asked that the money go to companies. That's what they asked for,

OK.

and now they have to take what they asked for.

Well, Mister Thompson has some, my colleagues. Mr. Thompson has some legislation uh to try to refund some of that to the consumers who paid it out of pocket. Um and small businesses you said uh can apply for the tariffs, what about the small businesses who had to shutter their doors because they couldn't compete uh because of the tariffs? I've had constituents who own businesses tell me they've had to close their doors forever because they couldn't absorb the cost of the tariffs. Um and they don't h- they're no longer in business and they don't have the money to hire attorneys to try to get those um those refunds back. Mister Horsford has a bill that addresses that. Um there really isn't any insight end in sight to these crazy tariffs either, because the President said he's going to re-impose the same tariffs using other authorities. All this begs the question is why is the Trump administration so fixated on tariffs? I mean he said that it was about bringing back American jobs, but that's far from the truth because as we've heard over and over again we've lost nearly a hundred thousand manufacturing jobs. So if Trump's crazy tariffs aren't supporting the American worker, who are they for? Um, I wanna bring your attention to the fact that it was recently reported that ArcelorMittal a European steel company gifted to President Trump thirty million dollars worth of foreign steel for his White House ballroom vanity project. Last October, President Trump spoke about the steel donation at an event with billionaire donors saying that Euro- European steel was " great steel" as opposed to " garbage steel". Just two days after that speech, ArcelorMittal benefitted from a new tariff exemption for steel and aluminum projects products. Ambassador Gould, do you think it's okay to grant tariff exemptions to companies in exchange for their donations to Trump's White House ballroom?

Uh, no, and I'm not aware of any kind of tariff exemptions.

Okay, can you at least agree that the White House which belongs to the American people, should be built with American materials and not foreign ones.

I don't, I don't have a bill of materials for the, for the ballroom, I'm not involved in it.

But, but, uh, I'm not asking if you're involved in that, I'm, I'm asking a simple question, shouldn't the ballroom be built with American goods?

I, I mean, I think that we wanna, you know, be able to, you know, not have the American per- uh, taxpayer saddled with something and the pres-

With a vanity project for building a brand new ballroom that nobody asked for?

the pres- the president hesitate. The president.

I see that my time has expired.

OK.

So I will yield back before the chairman admonishes me.

I would never do that, Miss Sanchez.

No.

Um, Mr. Arrington.

With all due respect, Miss Chairman, what needs to expire is this false narrative that somehow inflation was a problem

I'm so glad you asked.

uh that occurred on account of the policy decisions of this president and Republican leadership. Let's, lest we have a bad case of amnesia, let's recall the four years of failed economic policies, zero leadership in trade, unbridled spending that drove this country to a place where we had inflation like we haven't experienced in almost a half of century, twenty percent increases in prices across the board, And that was the cost of living disaster that the American people were living with. And that is the deep hole that our country was in when President Trump showed up his first year. It's amazing. We never heard this narrative from our Democrat colleagues, uh, Mister Ambassador, until now. But I think it's important to set the record straight. Um, I'm reminded, by the way, that food prices, because we have a lot of agriculture, a lot of fruit producers in my district, went up by almost thirty percent during the tenure of President Biden, and only two percent since this president has been in office. In fact, inflation and interest rates have come down from the fourth quarter of the Biden administration, the last quarter of that administration. Mister Ambassador, please work with me here on some simple questions that might elucidate the metrics of success in trade with this president versus the last president. Um, let's start with goods exported. Is it true, yes or no, that the goods exported, uh, have been record levels in twenty-five and on pace to even higher record levels in twenty-six? That is, exported goods from the United States, are they up at a record level in twenty-five, on pace in twenty-six, yes or no?

Yes, we've never exported this this much in two hundred fifty years of American history.

OK. I think the American people would say that's a win for the US of A. How about our dependency on China? I think most people would say that that they were worried about the national security implications of supply chain dependencies, especially with our adversary China. Um, true or false, yes or no, Are we less dependent today on China vis-a-vis trade? My understanding is that the trade deficit with China is down thirty percent. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, that's a win for the US of A. So let's cut through this false narrative. I think it's really projecting the guilt of having put the most regressive tax on working families that we've seen in over f- in over forty years. But nevertheless, the f- the facts belie that narrative. And let's go to another one, record foreign direct investment as side-card uh agreements to the deals that have been done to give us basically greater access into foreign markets. Trillions of dollars, I don't know the exact amount, but is, is that a a record amount of foreign direct investment associated with these trade deals, Mister Ambassador?

Ye- ye- yes it is, and countries know that if they wanna have access to our market, they need to bring manufacturing here, and so they're investing to do just that.

What else have I left out in terms of uh the successes that have been achieved because of the really good and hard work that you and the President have done to address the trade imbalance and the unfair trade practices perpetrated on our country. Because you see, Mr. Chairman, we're in very dark and difficult times for our country, I believe. This is an inflection point, and that was an historic election that gave our president, uh, uh, the Oval Office, gave him a mandate, gave him unified Republican leadership, and what he has done has been an exception to presidents of all parties for as long as I've been alive, maybe since Ronald Reagan, he's done the very difficult things that no one else seems to have the political courage to do, with respect to the border, with re- respect to avoiding a nuclear Iran, and with respect to uh restructuring the world trade order so we don't bankrupt this country or we're not in a very bad position uh uh from a national security perspective uh uh with respect to dependency. any last big metrics I left off of y'all's uh track record of success.

I think it's a, I think it's important to, to just see how the, how the president's, you know, manufacturing jobs under the president are finally positive in the last quarter for the f- for the first time since the Biden years. Manufacturing productivity is the highest it's been. Uh, capital goods orders are the highest they've been in decades. All of this shows uh, that, that this is what's happening. Uh, you know, we have even, you know, the Wall Street Journal, who's not a fan, you know, they put out an article, One anecdote, GE Appliances plans three billion U. S. investment to help blunt tariffs. I'm happy to enter this in the record if you would like. So we are seeing real change, real concrete change. It's not about theory, it's not about politics. It's about having more manufacturing uh in America and exporting more.

Uh, uh, uh, it's about results. And with that, thank you for your service, your leadership, God bless you. Keep up the good work. I yield back.

Thank you. Mister Smith.

Mister Chairman, if we could add that, uh, I ask unanimous consent to add that article for the record.

Without objection.

Yes.

Uh, I just wanna announce that the votes have been called. There are two votes. We're gonna try to work through this process. I'll turn the chair over very shortly to Mister Smith, um, but we'll we'll go to Miss Sewell.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and good morning, Mister Ambassador. You know, I can't, uh, go to, uh, my local grocery store without being stopped by w- someone, uh, from my, um, Alabama constituency complaining about the skyrocketing prices of gasoline and how unaffordable things are uh in their lives. And um they're not - they're wondering how we got here and they're also wondering what we're gonna do about it. And so I'm hoping that in our - in the course of our conversation that you'll help me uh be able to respond to some of the questions I get, about the high prices of things. Um was - w- did you ever um uh as the - as the President's Chief Trade Advisor did you brief him on the pos- bef- you know, before February twenty eighth and the invasion on the possibilities of what, uh, war would do in terms of our trade policy and in terms of consumer goods going up and, um, and p- potential trade disruptions. Yes or no?

Well, the the president was aware that, you know, Asian countries dependent on oil and gas coming from the Gulf would be affected. We have a lot more resources here. Uh, he's very mindful of it. He knows the price of gas has gone up,

Yeah.

and he's looking to wrap it up quickly to make sure we get back to the good fundamentals on energy.

So, Mister uh Secretary um, um Mister Pr- Ambassador, sorry. Um, I I truly believe, and my constituents do too, that this was a war of choice that was launched uh by the President without consultation with Congress, and that the war has been having uh massive trade implications uh right here at home. I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know if President Trump was aware of the trade consequences. So I'm glad to know that, you know, he contemplated some of those. But, uh, in listening to your response to my colleague, uh, Linda Sanchez, with respect to the higher prices, um, you know, y- you can cite all you want if the American people truly believe that their pocketbook is being hit harder, and that that what's going on is really disruptive for them. You know, I represent a rural community, uh, in the Black Belt, the heart of the Black Belt in Alabama. And my farmers are already suffering from higher fertilizer costs. We talked a little bit about this today, but I wanted to get into it a little bit deeper because, you know, so many of my constituents, my farmers, um, didn't have the resources to buy fertilizer before all of this happened. And so a lot of them are being impacted about, um, planting season. I mean, planting season's come and gone, and many of them didn't make, um, their crops this, uh, this year. And so, um, You know, I think you know that thirty percent of the world's fertilizer supply uh passes through the Strait. Um, and the President, I'm sure, is aware that his actions have increased fertilizer pricing. Um, it's on the news all the time. Um, but rising fertilizing prices is a is a very real problem for my district. Um, over three hundred Alabama farmers were recently surveyed by the American Farm Bureau and almost eighty percent of the farmers said that they will not be able to buy all of the fertilizer they need for this growing season. Nitrogen-based fertilizer prices have soared over the last uh months uh by over thirty percent um since the invasion and only twelve percent of my farmers in Alabama have purchased fertilizer in advance of planting season. This will surely um mean that they'll have a lower crop yield and that prices will increase for the food that they do supply. Um in the survey, ninety-two percent of Alabama farmers uh reported that their financial conditions were worse since last year when President Trump took office. Uh what what do you think I can say to the ninety-two percent of my farmers who say that they're worse off?

So I I first of all uh we're we're aware of the effects on on fertilizer, particularly for spot prices, which is what I think you're talking about.

Mm-hmm.

A lot of farmers were covered up in advance, some weren't, and those who are buying on the spot market are seeing increases. Uh, you know, we get a lot of potash from Canada, that's all, you know, duty-free. We do a lot of uh phosphate here in the US. Uh, nitrogen we do get from overseas. And that's where we're very focused.

Yep.

Uh, I think there's

And there and there has been disruption with the Strait being closed.

There has been disruption, yes. I mean, n- nothing is cost-free. When you have an Iran that's threatening to go nuclear, I mean, what's the cost of leaving that alone and and letting them do it, right? That's a much higher cost to e- to everybody. So

Well, we can agree to disagree. I think that Congress should have had the opportunity to know why we were getting into this war and what consequence, and have the opportunity to have a healthy debate about what uh the the the pros and the cons. Nevertheless, I we are where we are right now, and um I I I I can't tell you with all sincerity how every day that I'm home, I hear something about rising prices. And so I think that um I think that it's important for us uh to know that wars have consequences. And I think all of us know that there are consequences, but I'm here to tell you, Mister Ambassador, that the um the the cost of food, fertilizer, um the cost of um, you know, gas, all of those are hitting the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans that I represent, and they really, really, really want the President to know that they're hurting. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mister Herndon is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, thank you, Ambassador Greer, for being here today. Really appreciate it. I want to start by saying thank you for your leadership on your commitment to strengthen America's industries. I have a couple questions I'd like to take this opportunity to address. Uh, we have spoken on multiple occasions about the issues facing Oklahoma veteran owned aerospace company, Covington Aircraft. Aaron Abbott's sitting right behind you there. He's up here a lot uh talking about this issue over the last couple years. And um I I just appreciate the chairman expressing his support for Covington in his opening comments as well, and I wanna expand on his points a little bit if I could. Covington uh supports critical maintenance and overhaul work on Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-six engines used in agriculture, emergency response, and military aircraft. In alignment with OEM requirements, Covington must source certified replacement parts to the authorized Canadian supply chain as a result or subject to a stack of tariffs. The same fully assembled engine entering from Canada may receive more favorable treatment under USMCA. The result is that an American company employing American workers in Oklahoma is penalized for repairing engines here in America. Current incentives favor foreign competitors conducting offshore repair work who then ship the assemble and overhaul engine back to the United States. I appreciate your continued commitment to addressing these concerns and can you provide us an update on how USTR specifically is working to insure parts important for maintenance repair and overhaul treated consistently with engines themselves and this and thus r- you know the vital US aerospace

Certainly. Uh, so so first of all, I think it's a I I think for anyone who wants to rely on this, you know, Canada taking advantage of of a of a situation that may be favorable for the moment, I think it's a very high risk business proposition for them, cuz it's not gonna remain that way. Um, you know, President Trump, he he believes in in tariffs to protect American manufacturing for companies like Covington and where you see something uh where there's a a differential or some kind of a tariff inversion that's something that has to be fixed either through a tariff we impose or some other kind of measure uh so we've we've you know our staff has has met with Covington uh other times I've spoken with the Canadians and I I just can't see that being a long-term possibility to for people to continue to rely on on that market and President Trump is very clear that we're we need to have a fair relationship with Canada and that is not fair.

Well I appreciate that, I know you're addressing this and many other issues r uh regarding the USMC uh review and appreciate you taking a look at it. Appreciate your team meeting with Covington's team. Um, it's uh been duly noted and again thank you for meeting with him. Also uh want to touch on the pillar two side-by-side uh deal that we that will bring stability to the international system. That being said, countries around the world are aggressively charting US businesses with audits and discriminatory uh discriminatory tax schemes. Uh, I was pleased to see Germany's discriminatory uh withholding tax uh also known as section forty-nine that was dug up out of the grave, including USTR's foreign trade barriers report. Another concerning case is Mexico's use of targeted and arbitrary taxpayer audits against US companies operating in Mexico with American companies having millions added to their tax bill in some cases. Last year, by the Mexican government's own admission, revenues from large business audits increased by thirty-six point seven percent. What tools, uh, can you use to address uh Germany's section forty-nine aggressive audits or other discriminatory uh discriminatory tax policies levied against American companies.

Thank you. Um first of all I would say that we have a uh the a strong dialogue uh with the German government on trade and economic issues, uh where I meet with you know their ambassador regularly, their trade minister, as well as the economic advisor to Chancellor Chancellor Merz. Um you know they are aware that the United States trade policy is for fairness and reciprocity. And so we've been talking about a number of things. I can I can look into, uh, you know, section forty-nine. Obviously our team has looked into it. We've included it in our national trade estimate, uh, and we'll assess it. I'll I'll raise it with them. And if if we, um, can find adequate resolution, we can explore additional tools.

Appreciate that. Again, thanks for your time. Uh, you're back.

Thank you. Miss Chu is recognized for five minutes.

Ambassador Greer, before I begin, I want to Quickly thank you for your work on Canada's on-line streaming act and your consideration of a section three O one investigation. It is very critical for our American creators because our industry generates over two trillion dollars in economic activity, including more than thirty-three billion dollars in wages in California and policies like the on-line streaming act risk shifting jobs and investments out of the US and into Canada. Now, um, for my first question, Ambassador Greer, last year I shared with you my concerns about the administration imposing tariffs on products like bananas and coffee beans goods that the United States simply does not produce at scale I warned that this approach would raise costs for American families last week you acknowledged before the appropriations committee that those tariffs were eventually removed after and I quote, internal economic analysis unquote. I'm concerned that it took roughly seven months from April twenty twenty five to November twenty twenty five to reverse those tariffs on products that were clearly never viable for domestic production no new information was needed to reach this conclusion but actually perhaps this delay could have been ameliorated if there was a transparent or public process for determining those exclusions, whether there was input on this process so As you move to reconstruct those tariffs under section one twenty-two, after the Supreme Court rejected your administration's use of IPA or the emergency authority would you commit to a clear public process for determining future exclusions or will these decisions continue to be made internally without clear criteria or stakeholder input?

Uh, so, uh, Miss Chu, the one twenty-two tariffs are already in place and they OK.

And now, what I would uh like to ask is what you described underscores a broader concern that I wanna raise. When tariffs are imposed broadly and then exemptions are granted behind closed doors it creates a system where relief is not based on clear rules, but on access and discretion. And increasingly it is starting to look like a pay-to-play system, where the well-connected can secure relief while everyone else is left to bear the cost. Over the past year, those who've chosen to bow down to President Trump have been rewarded with tariff relief or exemptions shortly after while everyday people like my constituents in Southern California watch in disgust as this administration refuses to do anything to refund them the money they were forced to spend, due to tariffs we knew were illegal all along. For these families, there is no process, no relief, and no recourse. as you confirmed in your earlier remarks. I'll give you some examples. Apple secured tariff exemptions after its CEO made a million dollar contribution and engaged directly with the administration. A thermoplastics manufacturer owned by major Republican donors received a tariff exemption for its product. Tariff decisions on electronics benefited companies like Tesla, whose CEO was a major political supporter. And Florida crystals received a favorable tariff treatment after making multi-million dollar contributions to pro-Trump groups. Now, Ambassador Greer, one year ago you sat before this committee and I ask asked you to confirm that there would not be a pay-to-play system for these tariffs where companies and donors made the pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago to get exemptions. You actually assured me that would not happen. You said, and I quote, " You have my promise," unquote.

And you do. There are no company-specific uh exclusions like this. I I don't even know where this is coming from. There are there are no company-specific exclusions at all. Any time there's any kind of a change in coverage, uh the White House puts out a Federal Register notice that explains what's happening and why.

But there are repeated cases where companies with clear political or financial ties to the administration receive favorable tariff outcomes, even though the lines may not be drawn exclusively. But certainly, they are the ones who get favorable treatment, whereas Americans who paid higher prices received nothing. And I do not believe that is fair.

In any time that the president has changed the coverage for things like bananas or critical minerals, we don't mind here. They're available to anyone. It's not company-specific. It's just here's the product. Anyone can import it.

The member's time has expired and Mr. Estes is recognized for five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador Greer, for taking your time to be here today. Um, we're we're glad to have you back uh in front of the Ways and Means Committee to discuss some of the things administration's done over the past year to actually implement a true American first policy that places American producers and manufacturers at the center of of his agenda. Um, you know, from the very beginning of each of President Trump's two terms, he stood up for American workers and American businesses with all of the different trade policies that uh you're working to implement. Uh, we know that American products can compete fairly in global markets, Uh, when they do, we succeed. Uh, there's no better example of that than in my district, the fourth district of Kansas, uh, what we affectionately call the air capital of the world. Nearly every single airplane on the planet, uh, contains at least one component made in Kansas. And United States is a global leader in aerospace manufacturing. According to the Aerospace uh Industries Association, the aerospace and defense industry exported over a hundred and thirty-five billion dollars worth of goods and had a net trade surplus of seventy-four and a half billion dollars in nineteen and in twenty twenty three. For over seventy years, aviation sector sustained of trade surplus fueling economic growth. Free and fair trade agreements like uh the the nineteen seventy-nine agreement on trade in civil aviation, uh empower our av- our aerospace uh leaders to set the standard for innovation safety and reliability, all the while growing our economy. To maintain America's competitive position, we must continue building on items like the nineteen seventy-nine's agreement success. Same can be said for USMCA. Since it came into force during the first Trump administration, trade with our partners to the North and South have greatly expanded. In twenty twenty five, Kansas spent sent three point eight billion dollars in goods to Mexico and two point three billion dollars to Canada, both of which are significant increases from pre-seat to USMCA. The um, but the agreement's not without some issues, some of which have been addressed and others that are still needing to be resolved. Upcoming review on agreement is an opportunity to improve and grow our trading relationships with our two largest export destinations. I look forward to USTR's in uh further engagement with the committee to review this agree uh and address outstanding issues while maintaining the beneficial framework of the agreement including the zero for zero framework for aircraft and uh air and aircraft parts. Decently, I want to commend USTR's work in securing commitments to prevent digital services taxes on US companies in many of the trade frameworks that you've worked on over the last past year. I've been a vocal opponent of DST's as a a revenue grab by foreign nationals, uh, targeting American businesses and innovators, and as more compen- as more countries consider these discriminant discriminatory taxes and other novel approaches like Canada's on-line streaming act to raid the US tax base. I know your team at USTR will continue to be proactive in identifying them, and using tools, including section three O one to defend American interest. Um, USTR's uh uh previously identified the digital services taxes as one of the most discriminant policies that other countries are pursuing against American companies. Would you give us an update on where some of the negotiations are with uh some of these other countries on rolling back the existing DSTs and preventing additional countries from pursuing them?

Uh, yes certainly. You know, just one example. I had the uh the Trade Minister of Poland in my office about a week ago. uh, and there has been a proposal in Poland to establish a digital services tax. Uh, and I - I actually pulled out a copy of the report on the French digital services tax from the first term that resulted in tariffs on France and I showed it to him, and I said, " I - I really don't want to be in a situation where I have to put out a report that says Poland here instead of France." And I think he received the message uh so we're watching that very closely. Hasn't come into place. With Canada, they implemented it immediately, uh we worked with them to to get it down and they just repealed that a few weeks ago uh so we are seeing progress on this front we're working with our european partners right now on on this uh we know that the you know turks have this as well uh these are things where they know we have strong strong concerns they know we have three O ones available to us as well

yep well thank you and uh you know as i mentioned uh we we call our wichita their capital of the world obvious aviation is a big important footprint here um can you scare some of the ideas that the administration is looking to to help strengthen the nineteen seventy nine agreement on trade with civil aviation to help maintain US leadership in that critical trade sector

well i i mean first of all we want to we want to make sure that we have entire manufacturing ecosystems uh and so a lot of the manufacturing uh we're seeing now is due to the presence trade policy and people know if they build here that it's gonna be protected from foreign unfair trading practices and subsidized goods coming in from overseas so so that's part of it Um, we also know that there are supply chains established for, um, you know, the aircraft industry that the president has taken to account in his determinations.

Um, obviously some of those things that have built up over time, uh, we've gotta correct that imbalance that's been developed over decades,

Right.

uh, and, uh, appreciate the work that you're doing in that regard. So, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Doctor Murphy is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it comical, I'm for- sorry my Democratic colleagues aren't here, that they just complain about the actions and results that Republicans have to do when we come in and try to clean up on IL five. I'll just digress for a minute. You know, we have fifteen to twenty million people coming in the country illegally and they complain about when ICE goes in to enforce our laws. Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan led to the invasion of Ukraine. President Trump tries to clean it up. What do they do? Complain. Obama and Biden tried to pay off Iran when they lied and lied and lied to us. President Trump says no more, finally, to a nuclear Iran. What do they do? Complain. And now Biden, who did nothing on trade, for the last four years during his entire administration, Trump administration, the President Trump sees how badly we are being abused in the trade circles, and now they complain about us trying to do something about it. It is literally, we're just trying to clean up their their mess and what do they do? Complain about it. So thank you for all the work that you're doing in trying to clean up their mess, and actually try to get fair and uh good policy, trade policy to the US. That said, we're always in a place where we can improve. Um, I want to talk about something that's very close to my heart, Um, it's the Hope Help program in Haiti. I've spent a lot of time working in there, uh, doing medical work, and it's - it's a very - a very important issue for me. It's not only vital for the stability in the Western hemisphere, but also for our cotton industry, which is very important in my district, um, and benefits from Hope Help. Cotton industry is, as you well know, is going through very difficult times right now. It's important to ensure that the cotton industry is prioritized in the trade agenda. The American sumer - consumer, sadly enough, is keeping the Brazilian cotton farmer in business. This is where I've uh I've submitted the uh BACA legislation and I hope the administration really will get behind that to help the American cotton farmer. Securing a long-term extension of Hope Help is one way we can do to ensure this, and as the uh chairman spoke earlier, coupled with AGOA, we sent out three years, came back one year, really want this bond a much greater extension. Um the three years is just uh was something we had hoped for and we're falling short. Um Haiti's in our backyard. It's been ravaged by gang violence, instability, and it does it it behooves us to have a stable Haiti in in our in our own hemisphere. We cannot risk it further falling further into chaos. Hope Help creates not only jobs in Haiti, it creates near-shoring and brings supply chains out of Southeast Asia and back into our Western hemisphere. U S imports of Haiti apparel have fallen from nine hundred and ninety million in twenty twenty-one to almost half that in twenty twenty-five. About a fifty plus percent decline. The Haitian apparel employed uh Haitian uh uh apparel sector employed s over sixty thousand people now it's down to twenty four thousand people, twenty four thousand Haitians, a sixty percent decline. And sadly, the imports of apparel from Southeast Asia have actually increased. Again, this is our hemisphere. It is our um it is our and our national security. Uh on top of failing uh to secure long-term extension, Um, Hope Help was hit with Hope Help eligible products were hit with ten percent, uh, one twenty-two ter- section twenty-two tariffs. Meanwhile, CAFTA-DR eligible products were exempted from this. I just, I don't understand that. Um, this creates an unlevel playing field for Haiti, again, a stable Haiti is a stable United States. So I ask you this. Um, what is your position and l- hope of estan- establishing a long-term extension of Hope Help And would you would you support a longer extension, three years, five years, maybe hopefully ten years?

Uh, thank you, and and we understand the significance of um, you know, Haiti's textile industry in relation to ours and cotton et et cetera. So I think to the extent that there's going to be a movement on a Goa, on extension to a Goa, I think it makes sense what you're talking about to try to couple those together. I think that uh, you know, in terms of a preference package, I think we should work together on that front.

Uh, wha-

I don't know what the extension would be, but we're obviously open to a number that makes sense.

Yeah, so where where is the administration? I mean, I I know you're you're open to this. This is a real important issue. Um, and, you know, I I as usual when things get kicked down the road in here, this really has to happen. Uh, this is our hemisphere. We cannot allow um our hemisphere to collapse. So I I really can't even say this, I know every time I come to this, you come to this, I always bring this up. It's crit- it's critical that we do this. Another priority is restoring tobacco exports to China. And while we're not specifically supposed to talk about this, I'd really like to know where we are now with our export policies with China. They've picked up some other commodities, um, not specifically with tobacco, but what's the strategy for getting China back on board and increasing additional agricultural purch- purchases uh hopefully having them fr- come from China?

Uh, yes, and w- and we are talking in terms of aggregate overall purchases uh from China. uh there's been a lot a lot of talk about soybeans and we have a very specific commitment on soybeans uh but we're also looking to get a commitment from the chinese you know overall with respect to all agriculture would include anything that's grown including the kinds of products you're talking about um this is something that we hope is a deliverable uh coming in in may when the president goes to china and and we're trying to establish a mechanism with china to facilitate expanded trade in non-sensitive goods which would include of course agriculture

Yeah, so I mean this is important in the world's economy. You know, I I think it takes a while to train to turn around a battleship, and that's what the administration is doing. There are good, as you pointed out in your initial testimony, there are good highlights that we're seeing. It's gonna take a little while to change a trajectory that's been on a downward spiral for quite a quite some time. So I appreciate the effort. It's not easy. And we can always have complainers and whiners on the other side that don't like the details but if you look at the bigger picture and we especially we've, if we look back historically, five years, ten years, twenty-five years from now we'll see that the administration was doing the right things, uh, for the American farmer, for the American economy, and for the American people. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.

Thank you, Doctor Murphy. Uh, again, uh, thank you, uh, Ambassador. Um, I'm going to announce that the committee will stand in recess until members return from the series of votes which should, uh, be fairly short term here. um

The committee will come back to order. Um, recognize Mister Miller.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I truly appreciate it and it's good to see you, Ambassador. Thank you for being here uh this morning and hopefully be too long of a day for you as we continue to go on. Uh, but Ohio, the state uh that I come from and represent Ohio seven ranks as the tenth largest exporting state in the nation leading in both manufacturing and agriculture. And I thank you uh for USTR's attention through recent tours in Ohio as a part of the America First Trade Policy's revital revitalization initiative and I truly am grateful and it's great to see you out in Ohio as you probably saw large and small companies throughout Ohio on the front line providing critical goods to everyday Americans from your morning coffee, uh which is Smucker's in Wayne County, to consumer and industrial manufactured goods, to means for the disabled to live a more fruitful life. This is our America first. Within Ohio's seventh congressional district, international trade contributes fifteen cents of every dollar in the region. It is paramount for many of these vibrant US-based industries to have the tools needed to continue to serve our nation and continue robust economic contributions for consumers and industry alike. Uh, just one example, uh, and I have a few, but one from our community, Worcester, Ohio, is home to a company that makes communication devices for children and adults with speech disabilities. These tools help people speak, learn, and live more independent lives. This company proudly builds these products here in the United States, but tariffs are raising their input costs and making it harder to get these devices to the people who need them. The administration says its twenty twenty-six trade policy agenda will support growth and strength in the United States' production. How can we make sure it does just that and empowers companies like this one in particular, so they can keep making these products in our country and building local economies?

Thank you. So, uh, we have seen in in the data, uh, both in the data and anecdotally, uh, over the past year, uh, we've seen that the tariffs have increased in protected American production. uh including you know new lines in ohio new production facilities etcetera uh we've also heard from stakeholders who have come to talk to us about how shifting supply chains can effect what they're doing some have talked about you know they may have a higher cost because they've been sourcing for china we've

yeah

had tariffs on china for eight years at this point um and so i think people are are trying to find ways uh to realign their supply chains uh it it's hard to take seventy years or however you want to calculate a forty years

Yeah, and look, Ambassador, I agree with you and President Trump that our country has been treated unfairly for decades uh and more than half a century when it comes to trade with our country. And it's just my uh, you know, estimation or opinion obviously that it should be done over a period of time and not just be done overnight. And my concern is right now that we have companies and I have several more, I just, there's just no need to um, you know, continue to drag on the point. But we do have the vast majority of companies in my district, uh, through Kai Haage, Medina, Wayne and Holmes, that this tariff policy, it isn't working for them. And it is not a net positive, it is a net negative. And these are people, regardless of political affiliation, I understand that maybe overall, as you're saying, It's been a net positive for the country. My job isn't to represent the entire country. For that matter, it's not to represent the entire state of Ohio, it's to represent a district, uh, just compromised of about eight hundred thousand people that it's my job to look out for. And right now these policies are doing more harm than good, so I I would really like USTR, as well as the Department of Commerce, to commit, uh, to opening up a waiver or an exclusionary office just to bring some stability uh and maybe a little less stress and anxiety to our small and medium sized business owners which when they get hit with a tariff at port they're not able to pass off that price to the consumer i understand that we have been taking advantage of and i agree that it is time for the united states to get back to real fair trade policies with other countries but my biggest concern is that we have a lot of people who don't have answers with a lot of questions so you I don't really wa- I don't wanna put you on the spot, but I'm going to. I mean, can you commit to opening up a waiver and exclusionary office from this administration, uh, or working with this body in order to codify these tariffs that are right now extremely temporary, uh, for the entire economy, unless we codify them into law?

Well, on - on the last part, I'm always happy to work with Congress about codifying tariffs. Uh, on the first part, I can't commit to open up an exclusion office. Uh, the president personally has been very direct that he doesn't wanna do this. Um, this usually in his experience, including from his last term and over going into the Biden term, uh, people use this as an excuse not to re-shore. That being said, going forward, if there are, you know, there are certain investigations going on relative to tariffs, and there are federal register notices that go out, and opportunities to comment, and to the extent tariffs are proposed, companies and the public and others can comment on whether they think that's a good idea or not. So there are opportunities for public engagement.

Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How you back up?

Mister Davis.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh thank you, Ambassador, it's good to have you here with us. You know, in my district, prices are up, wages are down, and in some areas, unemployment is high, jobs are scarce, and people are indeed frustrated. So, Mister Ambassador, let me ask you How how does the administration assess the net economic impact of recently proposed and implemented tariffs on US industries, particularly with respect to inflationary pressures, supply chain resistance and global competitiveness? And and what empirical evidence can you provide to demonstrate that these tariffs are strengthening domestic production without imposing disproportionate cost on American consumers and small businesses?

Well, well, first of all, trade policy can't fix, you know, a bad business climate in Illinois. That's for sure. It can't fix that with tariffs. But, but what we can do, uh, we know when we look at the data, if we look at the February, uh, CPI, it shows for for goods, uh, the inflation rate was only one point two percent. Services are higher, right? Cuz these are things like health care and housing and education, things that Democrat policy has inflated prices over many years. So when it comes to goods, though, it's only one point two percent. Uh, we're focusing our trade policy on getting better wages and better jobs. And I entered into the record earlier just an example, right, an an anecdote of, you know, GE Appliance, uh, planning a three billion dollar US investment to help blunt tariffs. Uh, so there are a lot of these folks and companies who are building here because they know if you build here you don't have to pay a tariff. We're very conscious that Americans, um, are concerned about prices and we wanna work on it. A lot of the, you know, we don't have any tariffs on energy, we don't have any tariffs on fertilizer. Most of the food we eat we make here and - and we import stuff from Canada, Mexico, it's not subject to a tariff. So a lot of these things are, you know, the trade policy is designed, uh, with these types of things in mind.

You know, automotive experts are warning that we're going to be experiencing higher prices and job losses in the automotive industry. And if these trends continue, what - what does the administration propose to do to alter these trends and stop the hemorrhaging? in terms of the automotive industry.

Thank you. So, uh, a couple things to keep in mind. We've seen, uh, prices for vehicles like, uh, you know, used cars in particular, that's gone down three point two percent in in recent months. Um, and and we have seen new investment in auto manufacturing. We've seen Stellantis, for example, bring back a production line from Canada and bring back one from Mexico. We've seen Toyota announce ten billion dollars of investment. Uh, so we're seeing the jobs come back. Again, the trade policy it's a focus on producing these jobs, we are seeing it in the auto sector, and we watch it closely, cuz I I agree with you, we wanna make sure that we have those jobs in production right here in America.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and now you're back.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I'd uh or thank you, Mister Davis. Like to um recognize myself for five minutes. Uh, investor, thank you uh for your work. Uh, I just have a few areas uh that I'd like to just um get your comments on. One is um and I think as you probably know, I recently introduced the Protecting American Streaming and Innovation Act uh which is a bill that would direct USTR to initiate a section three O one investigation into Canada's on-line uh streaming act. That bill's also uh supported by eight of my colleagues here on the committee. Um as highlighted in this year's national trade estimate, this type of discriminatory audio uh visual and streaming mandate, it's not only limited to Canada, but there are similar measures that are emerging or are under consideration in other markets like Australia, Brazil and uh parts of Europe. Um, and I just wanted to get your concern. It's a, I mean get your thoughts, it's a, it's a serious concern I think that'll have a significant impact. If that continues to spread, of course Canada's is already. Um, so, like to get your thoughts and - and would like to know if USTR is, uh, planning to address this issue, uh, i- address the, uh, potential broader proliferation, uh, of these measures.

Uh, certainly. So we - so we are addressing it. So in the first instance we've concluded nine agreements on reciprocal trade. Uh, and in those agreements we're committing countries not to im- not to impose digital services taxes uh not to discriminate against US technology companies not to im- network usage fees, uh, and that kind of thing. So - so on the one hand we're making deals to do that. Uh, you know, on the other hand, you know, we have the potential to use a section three O one investigation like you've talked about - the president has talked about it - what we really want are outcomes. Um, and if we need to do a three O one to have more leverage to get that outcome, then we can certainly, uh, do that and use that. Uh, you know, f- Australia, for example, for a long time they had this, uh, you know, the - the type of acts you're talking about. uh we're able to hold them off for for quite a long time you know we're concerned about them moving forward on this i've already had a conversation with my australian counterpart uh we'll continue to work with them we wanna we wanna find solutions to eliminate these types of practices or mitigate them uh if we can't do it through negotiating then we will use enforcement means to do it

sorry could you speak to where specifically we are uh relative to canada on the issue

uh certainly so um I I'm in regular contact with my Canadian counterparts. You know, we have given them items, uh, issues that we think are obstacles, uh, for the trading relationship. Uh, there are th- for example, they had a digital services tax last year that they, uh, established and very quickly, upon the threat of an enforcement action, they removed it and they finally just repealed it, uh, a few weeks ago, w- which is good movement. They have the other act, though, uh, pending or - or - or being implemented. Uh, and these are these are issues that we've raised and will certainly raise in the context of USMCA review, uh, and we'll want to eliminate this.

Thank you. Um, next issue, um, and I don't know what work you've done on this, but, uh, my, um, area has been particularly hard hit, uh, this spring, uh, with the avian bird flu. So we've had, like, millions of chickens, um, wiped out. Uh, and of course this is an issue across the country, but I think our county one of my counties was the number one county in uh relative to the number of birds. Um, and I think, you know, we're working on vaccination. It's potentially a tool that could help control the disease, but uh my producers, uh particularly on the meat side, are concerned about the impact that may have on export markets, where some countries um are opposed to accepting chickens that have been vaccinated. Um, and so I was wondering whether that's on your radar, whether we're trying to work that out, uh, with other countries to protect our flocks, but also ensure that the export markets continue to be open.

S- so we've had ongoing dialogues and even commitments from other countries with respect to you know avian influenza and how it's treated you know after an outbreak and et et cetera uh I will check on the vaccine issue uh you know we've urged countries to when we have an issue in the US they try to regionalize it, so that if one region has it you know others aren't penalized on on respect to the vaccines i'll check with my team uh to see where we are on that specifically

ok i appreciate that and i just have a few seconds i've asked many times about uh dairy uh pennsylvania dairy farmers obviously uh very very important they're some of the most productive in the world but they continue to face barriers in key markets again particularly in uh canada under usmca uh and in europe through geographical indication restrictions uh what enforcement actions is ust are taking uh in regards to dairy

so so first of all this has been a key area uh for the administration in many of our agreements we secured new and additional market access overseas so this is a big win for dairy uh we had double digit increase in dairy exports last year so so that's that's a good news story uh on canada in in particular this is another issue we've raised with the canadians uh either we have to resolve it uh you know very soon in the context of usmca negotiations or we'll have to resolve it Yep.

Yep. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. Uh, and at this time we're going to two to one, so, uh, Miss Miller, I'd like to recognize you for, uh, five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador Greer, for being here today. After a four-year vacuum in the trade arena during Biden's administration, I'm really excited to see with your leadership and President Trump's leadership where the next year will lead us. I want to take the opportunity to ask you about upcoming measures in the digital trade sector. This year's national trade estimate addressed the immediate need to address a host of unjustified digital trade barriers imposed by our trading partners. I've spoken with you at length about the need to address digital discrimination, and that Korea is a particularly bad actor in this sector. Korean officials continue to advance discriminatory regulations, including its on-line platform monopoly act and cloud security assurance program. I believe Korea's and similar actions are being taken by other countries, particularly in the EU, that they warrant section three O one investigations. Could you please provide an update on the status of any potential investigations, and what might the resulting enforcement actions look like?

Certainly. So with respect to the EU, for example, and and Korea, too, uh, you know, over the past year we have concluded framework agreements with both of these countries uh and both of them have committed to you know fair treatment of us uh platforms now i think with the eu they have a they probably have a different view of what's fair than than we do right um i have the european trade commissioner coming he is coming on friday and this is right up there in our topic of discussion among a handful of other things so it's something that we raise with them consistently um you know they have their different divisions in the eu that have authority over this and we uh I'm working together with the State Department, with Department of Justice to have an aligned US government position. Uh certainly USTR we can do an investigation. Uh you know we are in negotiations right now. We obvi- we want to try to have an outcome there if we can. Uh but we uh you know we can quickly be able to deploy an investigation enforcement action if needed.

Thank you. Another key factor for advancing the digital trade fa- sector is approving a long-term extension of E commerce moratorium. I was disappointed to see that a few spoiler countries arbitrarily blocked adoption during the WTO ministerial conference held in March. What is your plan for establishing a permanent or long-term extension for E commerce moratorium? Do you believe that this can be accomplished during the first post MC fourteen general council meeting in Geneva scheduled in May or do you think we should seek Pluralateral agreement outside the WTO.

Uh, well, we're we're trying to do both. Uh, so we'll have a meeting in early May, and there were two holdouts, Brazil and Turkey, who apparently want to be able to uh assess fees on American uh digital content. So if they do that, they'll pay a price for sure. Uh, all that being said, we got a hun- America got a hundred and sixty-four countries to agree with it that we should have a longer extension and we'll we'll move forward to a plural lateral agreement on that front.

Great. And I I finally want to ask you about updates regarding lifting the Jackson Vanek amendment. You've previously stated that we should strike a deal with Central Asian countries and to optimize the benefits for American companies before list lifting Jackson Vanek. Central Asia is rich in natural resources that we currently largely source from China and Russia. One path that I can envision toward lifting Jackson Vanek is by establishing critical minerals agreement between the United States and Central Asian countries. We would achieve this by following something similar to the action plan on critical minerals proposed with Mexico and Japan. What are your thoughts on securing similar agreements with Central Asian countries and subsequently lifting Jackson Vannick?

Well, I I think that a a number of U. S. government agencies have had constructive talks with Central Asian republics on on critical minerals, which is very important. It's just one sector among many. Uh, and as you know, these countries, uh, you know, they're they're large countries, they have, uh, growing economies, and - and we should be there. I - I think that any kind of, you know, when Congress moves to take care of Jackson Vanek or anything like that, I think it certainly should be coupled with, uh, movement on critical minerals and other market access that we need into those countries.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. We'll, uh, uh, now recognize Miss Moore for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Ambassador, for for spending all this time with the Ways and Means Committee. Um, I I wanna associate myself with comments that were made earlier by uh our Chairman, Mister Smith, that uh a GOA is a is very important to us, we want you to work with us in in renewing it. Um, we should um um This is uh something that is a bipartisan uh ask, and I just wanna associate uh myself with with that. Also wanna say that I'm from Wisconsin, sir, and even though I represent Milwaukee and the surrounding urban areas, um I am feeling the impacts in in lots of conversations about our farmers our soybean farmers who have seen their markets destroyed. uh with usaid uh being shut down and the markets in in china closing down and i understand they were probably going to be looking at some trade adjustment assistance for them for farmers but um farmers don't want these welfare checks it's not well and it's not fair they want their markets back and i think this gives i want you to think about this i think it gives uh China a lot of leverage uh over us. Uh I'm really concerned. You said here today that you were not a free trade person. And I don't know that I am either, but I'm a fair trade person, which I think is where all of us ought to be. Um and it seems to me that the president, and you support him as the trade representative, want to impose these tariffs with the hope that it's going to bring manufacturing jobs back. Um, number one, I haven't seen any industrial policy from the White House that would support that. All I see is trade, these tariffs and threats. I have absolutely I had no idea where you're getting the numbers from, because we factories are continuing to shed workers. We lost ninety-eight thousand manufacturing jobs just during the first year of the presidency's second. term. So, uh, I the question I have are, you know, with this strategy, we're gonna see a devaluation of the dollar, which of course will continue to raise prices for Americans to de-industrialize. Um, are you deliberately trying to devalue the dollar?

Uh, no, no, that's an interesting question.

But that's what's gonna happen.

Well, I I I think well, l listen, first of all, you know, the value of the dollar, it's weak or strong it's relative to other currencies in other countries so there are also you know if you export overseas and the the dollar is lower relative to that you can actually export more effectively now we're exporting more we've exported in American history on the trade policy issue uh congresswoman uh I I agree with you on on fair trade and focusing on manufacturing on January twentieth we put out a trade policy that was focused on manufacturing and I think I I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think you might agree with me that some of our trade policies past actually led to offshoring to Mexico or China or places like that. And so if there was a bad trade policy that could lead to offshoring, good trade policy can lead to to onshoring.

Well, you know, I appreciate your sentiments, but like I said, there's no industrial policy to enable manufacturers to stand up uh where we've been in the seventies or or eighties. Um, y- you you you spoke a little bit about um Uh, we talked about depreciating the dollar. Um, and we you constantly talk about our trade deficit account. But w- you talked about our exporting to Europe. Don't we run a surplus in the capital and financial accounts? You know, the the IMF has put together a balance of payments, and so it's kind of disingenuous to just call this a trade deficit when you consider the balance of payments. Am I wrong about that?

I think you are. I I I think that, you know, you can find some economists from like Cato, super libertarians who wanna go with you on that. I'm not in that camp. Uh, I'm more concerned in looking at the trade deficit in goods, where we're at one point two trillion in the hole following Biden years. I'm looking at our net investment position, where foreign countries have higher claims on US assets than Americans have on claim on foreign assets. That's a dangerous position to be in. Um, so I, there are sub-accounts you can look at. Um, I I'm happy to have a more conversation with you on this. I I think we're probably more aligned than you.

I'm happy, happy, you know, because I I went with the chairman to Madagascar, and we have an awful trade deficit with Madagascar. But I look around at all those poor people and I think, well duh, you know, they sell us vanilla, but we have a trade deficit and so I I I am we would have a broader conversation. I'd appreciate that because I think that the this trade policy of this administration is gonna continue to raise prices for Americans. We're sowing into a dream. of re-industrializing um and I uh I fear that it's just going to uh put us in a situation where we're not able to pay workers more, where we're hoping and praying for uh an event that may not occur. But I appreciate your patience and your indulgence. Thank you, Mister Smucker. I yield back.

Thank you. Now who would like to recognize Mister LaHood for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh Ambassador Greer, welcome. Thank you for your service uh at USTR and for being here today. Um, as you may know, Ambassador Greer, my district that I'm fortunate enough to represent, the sixteenth congressional district, is the tenth largest agricultural district in the country uh in terms of corn and soybean production. Uh, Illinois for the last twelve years has led the nation in soybean production um and we're second in corn production. And I I wanted to just um let you know that uh Roughly three weeks ago, uh, I had a meeting of my ag advisory committee, which is made up of about forty farmers, and I just wanna stress the, um, the anxiety and the uncertainness in the ag community right now, um, i- where prices are at, um, where diesel has gone, fertilizer, applications, and about forty percent of the corn and soybeans grown in my district and the state of Illinois go somewhere else around the world. markets and customers are important uh to our agriculture industry. And uh they're they're suffering now and they're concerned about the direction uh that we're going. And I would also add um the soybean uh production in the state of Illinois supports thousands of jobs and has generated roughly seven billion dollars in economic output uh for the state of Illinois. Um and I I wanted to just there's an article by the Associated Press April twenty twenty six that said when when china puts tariffs on the us uh china tends to buy their soybeans from brazil and argentina and particularly brazil and in that article they talk about we're not nearly as dominant in the world as we used to be in terms of a global export market of soybeans right now and i i i guess i'm looking for um some optimism uh for my farmers uh in a sense that we're headed in the right direction from a trade policy on corn and soybeans and opening up more markets and customers uh because we've heard a lot about that but I don't think my farmers have seen enough positive action or um results moving forward.

Uh thanks and we with respect to the trade policy uh agriculture is a big part of it. uh any time we do a deal with a country we say there has to be an ag element with respect to soybeans uh we've obtained commitments for tariff elimination or reduction for soybeans or soybean meal that's in argentina in cambodia in ecuador in bangladesh in indonesia and taiwan in addition to that we have actual purchase commitments from bangladesh india indonesia japan taiwan thailand i had mauritius in my office small mauritius they had their first shipment of american soybeans in a in a really long time uh so we're seeing uh diverse economies now coming large and small opening up wanting to get their trade deficit down and looking to do it through soybeans with corn corn exports went up by double digits last year so when it comes to trade uh you know we are trying really hard to do our part uh and i know that usda our our friends at usda have been going around the world all those countries i listed off they follow up the deal with a trip from the under secretary or others to go link together uh buyers and sellers in that market I have a, I have a guy in Singapore who's a soybean trader over there, and I have him on my WhatsApp. He just keeps me updated on what's happening. Uh, so I'm happy to, to match up, you know, particularly the USDA who does export promotion, who can link up our farmers to these new buyers in these diverse countries.

And I think there's also collective concern about what happens with USMCA as it relates to agriculture. As you know, uh, our ag economy has been, um, has really benefited from USMCA, particularly our corn, um, exports to Mexico. Um, and that relationship has continued to grow. Um, uh, and you may have addressed this earlier, Ambassador, but as we look at USMCA renewal and where we're headed on that, um, wh- what confidence again can you give to our farmers that that agreement is gonna stay intact and those markets are gonna stay vibrant?

Well, all all of the deals that President Trump has made with any country, they have required the other countries to open their markets. Uh, you know, Mexico right now is mostly an open market for agriculture. There are non-tariff barriers that we need to make sure that they either get rid of or don't adopt. We know on corn they've been an issue, and so they they know they they can't move on changing our market access for corn right now. Uh, so our our goal with all of this is to make sure that we maintain market access into these countries. Uh, we do need to take actions to protect manufacturing. We have a huge, nearly two hundred billion dollar trade deficit with Mexico that doesn't make sense. Uh, so we need to make sure we control that, but part of that is making sure we can export and continue to export to Mexico to balance out that trade.

And maybe last question, what's the next step in the process for renewal in the timeline?

So, uh, on July first, the uh each party to the agreement has to indicate whether they're going to do a renewal or whether they need to enter into a longer process of of renegotiation. And then if renegotiation is unsuccessful, it you eventually exit. Uh, I don't I don't think we're in a position to rubber stamp the deal. We now have six years of data. We also see good areas. We think ag is a great place. Uh, so we wanna maintain that, but we do have other areas we need to fix.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Kustolf for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador, for appearing today. I do wanna thank the Trump administration in your office for your commitment to uh work on onshore manufacturing. I think at least in my district and in Tennessee, That commitment is shared by manufacturers all across my state, and obviously we wanna make sure that the policy does achieve its goals. If I could though, many of the companies did this when the administration asked. They they left China, they invested in US plants, they built integrated North American supply chains across USMCA, Obviously when they did that, those were long-term, capital-intensive commitments. We do know that they rely on inputs, they r- rely on machinery, they rely on components, and raw materials that may not be and likely are not produced in the United States, and in m- maybe in many cases can't be. So, we we thank the administration when you removed agricultural products that cannot be grown here from the tariff list. Is there any type of remedy or solution that you can think of for these manufacturers that have brought manufacturing back to the US but they're they're dependent on inputs with no domestic supplier?

So uh the the automotive industry there's a the trade program is under section two thirty two and that's the commerce department um but i can just give a little bit of color on that one thing the commerce department has done uh one they have protected the american auto industry by putting a twenty five percent tariff on autos just like the twenty five percent tariffs we've had on pickup trucks for like fifty years so now that matches uh but at the same time there has been some provision for bringing in parts uh parts that are compliant with usmca rules having some kind of an offset and also accounting for us content So in North America there have been accommodations made by the Commerce Department to account for that integrated supply chain, particularly uh where uh it's it's relative to U. S. manufacturing.

So if you were me and you were trying to communicate to uh Tennessee manufacturers who who have onshore and brought back manufacturing to the to the U. S. and to and to Tennessee, what could I tell them about certainty? as it relates to tariffs.

Well, you know, the one thing that President Trump always says, if you build in America you don't you don't pay a tariff on what you build in America. That's the most certain. The American consumer is a strong consumer, so this is why everyone wants access to our market. Um, and and most of our economy is not trade dependent, about twenty, twenty-five percent is. Um, so that that's number one. Uh, number two, at the Commerce Department where they have tariffs on things like metals and autos, et cetera, um, you know, there are some things that you know, but there's been some accommodation, if there's US content they account for that, uh, et cetera. I would also recommend that they speak with the commerce department and engage with them at you know stakeholder level uh to let them know where there are concerns there was a recent adjustment that the commerce department did, on steel and aluminum uh to make compliance much easier for that program and also to uh make sure that it was only really focused on the most steel-intensive products and other products were uh subject to a different tariff regime.

Thank you, Ambassador. I could a- talk to you about, uh, PET manufacturing. There's evidence that in the section three O one record that foreign PET, uh, plastic producers are benefiting from subsidies, cheap input, forced labor, while lacking real domestic demand. And I ask that because it's harming US producers of both virgin and recycled PET. Given that PET's been identified as affected by excess capacity, are there any remedies that you that are in your toolbox that that uh that could address excess industrial capacity while protecting our industries and our workers?

Uh, yes, so I'm conduct my office is conducting a section three O one investigation of excess capacity, and so we would welcome comments from the

Thank you, Ambassador. Mister Chairman, I'll yield back my time.

Thank you, Mister Buyer.

Mister Chairman, thank you very much. And Ambassador, thank you for once again coming to be with us, and thank you for your thoughtful answers. I do wish Maybe our staffs could get together and agree on the statistics ahead of time. Um, I get confused when I hear you say these things. I, let me give you the data that I have, and and I get these things from the Wall Street Journal and the US Chamber of Commerce. The loss of eighty-eight thousand manufacturing jobs last year. The loss of five hundred thousand blue-collar jobs last year. Net job growth December, January, February together, net zero jobs. Um, I try to talk to each of my chambers of commerce every year and Those are largely Republican small business people, and the topic has come back to trade first and foremost every time, the way it's hurting their small businesses. And then I spoke to the realtors this morning in Virginia, uh National Association of Home Builders, again a pril- pretty Republican organization has pointed out that the s- tariffs on steel, lumber, aluminum, and tile have created an eleven thousand dollar increase in the cost of building a new home. Now that's a, that's a significant part of it. But let me see it. You speak eloquently about the Constitution, calling it our most important trade agreement. And you've praised the founding fathers for designing it with the separation of powers. And I know you're very familiar with Article one, section A of the Constitution, where founders gave Congress, not the president, the ultimate authority over trade policy and taxation. And we did this with the basic knowledge of the nation's early history, when they wanted to give the power to tax the American people through their elected representatives, not hand it all over to a mad king. And we're relearning the importance of this decision every single day of this presidency. Last year in front of this committee, Ambassador, you defended the President's decision to clear a national emergency over the long-standing trade deficit and over a non-existent crisis of fentanyl coming in from Canada to impose tariffs on most of the globe. We argued to you then that these tariffs were obviously illegal, and then the Supreme Court agreed, forcing the government to now refund billions in unlawful taxes. In response to government unearth an arcane half-century-old law, declared that we are facing a balance of payments crisis, and is imposing another around of likely illegal taxes on the American people. And on top of that, you're twisting the intent of two other trade authorities beyond all recognition to cobble together flimsy justifications for even more tariffs. Tariffs. Look, you and the president argue these tariffs are an incredible and popular policy tool to lead all sorts of positive outcomes to the American people. If that's true, why not just codify them? Let them sail through this chamber. We have a trifecta. You have control of the House, the Senate, the presidency. Um, why not put them before us? I'll be happy to vote on them.

But would you vote for them?

Probably not.

I, I think, I think

But, but, l- I'd love to see them, sure.

So,

Please.

so, so, Congressman, we spent forty or fifty years offshoring manufacturing, and we are opposed to that. and a lot of it had to do with bad trade policy. When China entered the WTO in the year two thousand two thousand one, following that we lost millions of manufacturing jobs, we lost tens of thousands of factories, and a really big negative impact. We now ha- and talk about NAFTA, we have a recent study from Harvard, you know, no no f- no fan of, they're not a fan of me or my administration, Trump administration. They said that there's a net negative health outcome of NAFTA due to the last loss of these jobs. So, there's a real problem here. And so if bad trade policy offshored, we think that better trade policy can bring it back onshore. And so we're seeing it happen right now. It's hard to do it in one year after fifty years of offshoring. Um, but we are seeing, you know, you talked about manufacturing jobs, the last two year of the Biden years we lost two thou- two hundred thirty thousand manufacturing jobs. It's terrible. This last quarter, the first quarter of twenty twenty six, there's a net positive increase in manufacturing jobs. I think you should think that's positive, I think that's positive.

If it is positive.

So we've seen the trend stabilize and go up. Um, we have to take the time we need to re-industrialize. It's really important for our national security. Uh, you know, we saw what happened in the pandemic, you couldn't get chips to put in the cars that are being sold on your lots. That's a, that's a big issue. So we have to re-industrialize and we have to get rid of the old trade policy that was benefiting foreign workers and products, and try to prioritize domestic production.

Well, let me also point out that, um, there there was an increase in manufacturing output, um, last year, which is the shift to technology. And we we see that that can come back, but I think we have to be very careful about what how many jobs we think we'll actually create. Um, I'd love to see them come back, but also we need to be aware of what the jobs are actually gonna look like.

I I agree with you, and we've been watching that.

Um.

Manufacturing productivity went up. Um, I was in Michigan and Ohio, and I saw that a lot of these companies who are expanding production, they're using AI to leverage the workers, not really to replace them, but to make them more productive. So I think we're gonna see less giant swings in in jobs, but I think we'll see less churn in jobs and I think we'll see uh AI and other technologies, industrial robotics, uh manu- you know maximizing productivity.

Yeah.

Th- thank you, and I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Mister Fitzpatrick.

Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ambassador Greer. Thank you for your time today, sir, and thank you for working with us to achieve balanced trade and enhancing our nation's economic security. Stabilizing imbalances with our trading partners should be a priority for everyone on this committee. uh in order to strengthen America's critical industries and our nation's uh industrial base. And our priority is to ensure that any long-term economic gains which the American people and workers could achieve in a more balanced trade environment are not undermined by our economic competitors and their unfair trading practices. It is essential that this Congress and the administration work together to maximize the benefits and limit the costs of our nation's trade policy. We must deliver greater certainty and economic stability for American consumers, American workers, and American families, and specifically, trade policies should prioritize strengthening relationships with our allies, rather than increasing reliance on our adversaries. On March twenty-six, the European Parliament voted to advance a US-EU agreement on the reciprocal fair and balance trade, originally agreed to last J- July. And I welcome efforts to strengthen our economic relationship uh with these key allies like the European Union. Um Ambassador Greer, how do you see uh that agreement um contributing to improve market access for American producers and how do you feel we can build on this development to strengthen our relationship um with our strategic allies to counter our adversaries?

Well, remember for for eight years under the Obama administration there was an effort in the Trans-Pacific Partnership to open EU to more market access and that effort failed. um we we approached the eu and we said if you want to have market access in the us you wanna have this giant trade surplus with the us and the eu is the largest source for our trade surplus now you need to make sure you give us effective market access and so in that bill that recently made it out of european parliament the europeans agreed to go to zero percent on all our industrial exports and to provide uh a lot of tariff rate quotas duty free tariff rate quotas for important uh us agricultural exports and importantly to address a lot of non-tariff barriers. It's not easy for the European Union to address these things. We're gonna hold their feet to the fire. We want to have a mutually beneficial agreement with them, so we'll keep working at it to realize these gains.

Thank you. Moving on to the uh USMCA, which represents uh nearly two trillion dollars in US goods and services uh in the region uh and has been influential in modernizing uh our trade with these partners, uh recognizing that the joint review will need to be

Thank you. I ha- I have a team in Mexico this week, I just came back myself, and as an initial matter we are addressing with Mexico topics like rules of origin, and economic security, and supply chain resilience. Uh, uh, this is kind of trade jargon, but what it means is we if if if Mexico and the US are going to have a close trade relationship, we need to make sure that the goods are actually from the US and Mexico, and not some third country using Mexico as an export hub to get into the the US, uh without any obligations of the agreement. Uh we wanna make sure that we're reshoring things like electronics and pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, et cetera, and that if Mexico's going to have a trade relationship with us, it needs to be in support of those goals.

And specific to uh to autos which have been you know greatly rebalanced um will us m c a economic security discussions include ways to address uh subsidized chinese autos uh and if canada is brought back into discussions will the us uh ask them to change their tariff rate quota uh for chinese evs

well i i think that if the if the mexicans and the canadians wanna have preferential access into the us market they need to make sure that they are controlling their own economic borders Uh, and that includes with respect to subsidized, uh, uh, autos coming from China or anywhere else, uh, for - for that matter. Uh, so we are - we are focused on this. Uh, each of these countries have their sovereignty and they can decide what they want to do. Mexico has already independently taken steps to raise tariffs on various items from uh Vietnam and China. We think that's a meaningful step and we look forward to their further alignment with us.

Thank you, Ambassador. You're back, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman yields. I now resc- recognize Mr. Stubbe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Ambassador Greer, thank you for your testimony. Uh, under President Trump, our economy continues to flourish and recover following the disastrous policies of the Biden administration. We must remain steadfast in advancing President Trump's trade agenda and continue to support the administration and its work upholding the security and prosperity of our nation and the American people above all else. Looking ahead, Congress must continue emboldening the work of the administration, putting America first, and unapologetically provide any and all authorities that are necessary to protect the American economy from unfair trade practices. We must uphold the sovereignty, resilience and security of the industries that allow our economy to prosper. This means utilizing all the tools at our disposal so that American industries can compete against our adversaries that seek to dismantle the economic security of our country. It's this forward-looking approach that the Trump administration advances in every negotiation and enforcement action to ensure that the strength of our economy is not only restored but sustained for generations to come. First, I'd like to talk about specialty crops, uh, especially in the state that I represent in Florida. Many agricultural producers, uh, in the great state of Florida have been undercut and lost market access due to the sudden surges of Mexican specialty crop imports during peak harvest seasons. Are current anti-dumping and countervailing duty tools sufficient to provide effective relief for American specialty crop producers?

I I think the current trade remedies you're talking about, they can be challenging. Um, I think there might be a case pending ri- right now. Uh, but I've seen them attempted to be used before and sometimes it's challenging to to get the best data cuz a lot of our farmers are small farmers and they can always you know represent themselves very effectively in Washington. You know, when I'm speaking with the Mexicans, and I've already raised this with them, I want a control for this issue. You know, it's it's one thing to get imports of fruits and vegetables, you know, and, you know, january and february and december and things like that it's a totally different thing to get the big surges you're talking about during the shoulder seasons for growing and sales uh so we can certainly through usmca discussions try to control this and find a solution i think trade remedies could be improved to account for the issue as well

so in ups upcoming usmca negotiations specialty crops will be something that you guys will be focused on to to insure that our american producers are being treated fairly

yes and i've i've already raised it with my counterpart

thank you Um, quickly talk about sugar, uh, section three O one gives USTR the authority to counteract the foreign structural excess capacity caused by the foreign policies identified by USTR in the new national trade estimate report by raising tariffs in situations like this. Are you willing to use section three O one to effectively secure US interest in maintaining a domestic sugar industry and avoid the economic crisis that is currently impacting the US sugar industry?

Uh, well I I've spoken with uh US sugar stakeholders. I know this is an

OK, last week Secretary of Ag Rollins uh said in budget hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture that unfair imports crushing American farmers. That sugar is one of those sectors that is a priority for the administration, that she's committed to working with you to protect American farmers. Are you committed to working with Secretary Rollins and the President to use section O three to s- to address this problem?

Uh, so I talk to Secretary Rollins almo- almost daily basis. We've talked about this i- this issue, and again we're l- we're looking at different authorities that - that could be used.

Uh, trade policy should reflect not only economic interests, but also national security and ideological alignment. Strengthening relationships with allies who share American values is essential to reducing reliance on adversarial nations. Uh, how can we ensure that our trade policies prioritize and strengthen our relationships with strategic allies who share American values, and are willing to join us in enacting common policies to counteract adversaries?

Well, I I think that we need to make sure that, um, our our trade is is optimized for both of these things you talked about. our you know economic well-being and our national security. So when you look at the present's trade program, you look at the Western hemisphere, they're kind of in the best situation when it comes to tariffs we've imposed on them and their access to this market. We have trade surpluses with a lot of those countries. You know, a- as you get closer to you know places like China and and and uh you know Vietnam elsewhere, um you know it's it's not really about do we like them or not, but they they do pose a challenge economically. You know China China is its own special threat. And so tariffs naturally are higher on those countries. So I think that we've built the trade policy in a way that, you know, the closer you get to America from a, you know, geo-economic, geopolitical position, the better you off you are. The closer you get to the other end of the spectrum, you know, the higher, higher tariff is gonna be.

Thank you for your time, uh, Hildbeck.

Gentleman Yeltsin, now recognize Mister Schneider from Illinois.

Uh, thank you, uh, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador Greer, for for being here today. Uh, first I I wanna associate myself with the earlier remarks of my colleague, Darren LaHood, uh, also from Illinois in support of our corn and soy farmers in USMCA. Our districts border each other in northern Illinois, and I can tell you I'm hearing the same thing from our farmers that he heard from his. Uh, looking at trade more broadly, a lot's changed since you were here last. Um, President Trump, with your help, has put new tariffs on many of our allies, removed some of those tariffs, and then reimposed other tariffs. Uh, you've also started dozens of two thirty-two and three O one investigations into products, and then cut deals with countries before those ingest- investigations have even concluded. But most importantly, since your last visit, the Supreme Court ruled that the IEPA tariffs were illegal, and subsequently ruled, it was ruled that the illegal tariffs collected must be refunded. These decis- decisions were the right decisions, and I'm proud that the lead plaintiff in the IEPA case was my constituent learning resources. Um, but let me raise a a concern that others have also brought up today. Tariffs have a place when used thoughtfully and when the process is transparent. Unfortunately, too often that's not been the case with this administration. Throughout this administration we have seen a perverse pattern of corruption, backdoor deals, random exclusions to companies that donate to the president, other companies end waiting endlessly for answers uh to their questions or requests for exclusions. Transparency in our trade policy matters. The details of the MFN deals that you have finalized behind closed doors with some of the largest per- prescription companies matter. How can we evaluate the effectiveness of these arguments and ensure both sides are enforcing the terms when we aren't able to see the actual text of the agreements, when we don't know the details and don't know what they're being followed? How can we be sure that companies aren't cutting deals with the administration and also working with China to develop the next generation of medical miracles. My district's home to companies that are developing some of the most cutting-edge medical technologies in this country, cures for the future, treatments that will change lives. These innovations must stay here in the United States. I'm concerned that your MFN deals, along with this administration's trade agenda, will end up hurting the United States in the long term and drive innovation innovation away from our shores and in particular towards China. So on these deals, uh, Ambassador Greer, the administration has highlighted the need to address unfair trade pact practices, the disadvantage US innovators, and ultimately shift a disproportionate share of global pharmaceutical R and D costs onto American patients. Can you share with this committee how the MF L MFN deals you have designed will address this in specifics and are you willing to share the details of those deals, the text of those deals, uh, with Congress and the American people?

So let me kind of disaggregate some of that. So I think you're talking about some MFN deals with the Commerce Department and HHS, where companies have finally agreed to reduce the prices for pharmaceuticals. We're finally seeing them uh decrease, and they're also building here in the United States. These are good outcomes, so - so we want those. Then I have agreements on reciprocal trade that are totally public. Uh, you know, we provide, you know, drafts in advance to the staff and - and members of the committee, and they commit people to IP commitments. Uh, and then we have a recent agreement on pharmaceutical pricing with the UK, which is public and - and can be seen. Uh, so, I mean, if you have any specific concerns about some of these, you know, on the MFN ones, I can refer you to HHS and the Commerce Department. But I think what we're seeing in the outcomes, pharmaceutical companies actually reducing their prices for specific drugs Americans need. That's a good thing we should be celebrating.

And let's agree, bringing down the prices of drugs is a good thing, and it's something I think we can work together on, but transparency is crucial on this so that the American people understand that - that these are over the table agreements not under the table uh agreements that uh leave people um carrying the bag as as we've seen too often uh shifting to the the tariff refund uh can you explain how um you plan to work with CBP to insure the refunds are given back to the companies in full without favoring one company over another if it's based on relationships with the administration or otherwise that those who paid tariffs will get the refunds that they're owed

there there's just an online portal I think the acronym is capes um and cbp runs it career staff are running it and you put in your information if it all matches up and you do your refund uh they'll they'll do it they're doing it in tranches pursuant to court order right thank you and uh with respect

right thank you and uh with respect to usmca you've shared with

to usmca you've shared with this committee your openness to changing

this committee your openness to changing uh the agreement from a

uh the agreement from a trilateral to a uh two bilateral sets of agreements

trilateral to a uh two bilateral sets of agreements

i know you were recently in mexico did your part counterpart there say they would be better off without usmca or or are they seeking to

uh continue um usmca as you know we we believe it is something that's important to continue uh with appropriate adjustments

well the the the mexicans uh agree with us that there are things that can be changed in usmca particularly to have more production in north america and they're open to having a bilateral protocol uh that that improves and adjusts some of the things in usmca i think there are lot of load bearing pillars in usmca that maybe we don't have to touch but there are things we have to and the Mexicans are open to doing that bilaterally.

Great. I I'm out of time, but I'll close on one last thought that I think we can all agree on. We are stronger, the world's better when the United States invents things here, makes things here, and ships them around the world, and fair trade uh is critical to that, and I think that's something we can all work together on. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields, uh I recog- I recognize myself now for five minutes. I would just wanna say thank you so much, uh Ambassador Greer, for for being here and being so responsive to me and my staff. And as you know, Um, the top trade issue in my district in Northern New York, New York twenty-four, is the relationship between the US and Canada. Uh, from tourism to agricultural markets, uh, commodities to wine and manufactured goods, it's a huge issue. Uh, and Canada is a top market for my district. However, uh, Canada has long discriminated against certain industries in my district, and that is what I wanna focus on today. I got a couple of quick things, but, um, let's start with dairy, and we've talked about this before, as you re- recall. probably. My district is the fifth largest dairy producing district in the entire United States. Uh, for years Canada has rigged their system to prevent U. S. dairy producers from fair access to Canada's markets. This year's National Trade Estimate report, as as every year's report uh details, Canada's market manipulation and unfair treatment of U. S. producers is still evident. Uh, the U. S. has fought for years to gain access to the Canadian dairy market, and yet Canada continues to violate USMCA, and the spirit of its dairy commitments. Um, have you and your team raised these issues with your, our Canadian counterparts thus far, and have they been constructive in helping all of us resolve this issue with our our friend to the north?

Uh, we have raised it repeatedly and frequently, uh, over the past year. Um, our Canadian counterparts have indicated as a general matter. They're happy to talk to us about adjustments to USMCA and different things like that, but they have made no commitments on this front at this time.

Well, that that's disappointing. So let's shift to wine, uh another issue uh detailed in the national trade estimate. Uh every Canadian province, with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan, has ceased distribution of US wine and liquor products, including Ontario to the north. Uh this is uh distorting the market, causing immense harm to our wine producers uh in the district. And he have you and your team raised uh this issue as well with our Canadian counterparts and have they been trying to Help us? Have they been constructive in this issue much like uh with the dairy issue?

Well, it's a it's at the provincial level, right? So we hear from the federal government of Canada,

Mm-hmm.

well it's the provinces, and then we do have two provinces who who don't have this. Uh, that being said, I I think we're kind of at the end of our rope in in just asking for them to do this. I think about it this way. There are two countries that have retaliated economically against United States in the past year, the People's Republic of China and Canada. So that's kind of the the company that they're running in. So my sense is there may have to be an enforcement to deal with this uh issue on wine and spirits in Canada.

Thank you for that. I let's hope we can resolve that. Um and one last issue I wou- I'd like to discuss with uh is the Canadian prohibition on bulk imports of fresh fruit and produce. My district is the nineteenth largest fruit producing district in the nation and the twenty-first largest vegetable producing district in the nation. Once again, as detailed in the NTE, Canada severely restricts imports of bulk fresh fruits and vegetables. Have you and your team raised this issue? with our Canadian counterparts and where are they with this issue as well?

Uh, we have. We thought this would be an easy one for them to fix. They've refused to fix it. It's in the national trade estimate, it has been for a long time. It's one of those crazy things when you hear that it exists, people say, oh well Canada, they're our best friends, uh but then they do things like this where you can't ship fruit uh if it's in a package above a certain size it doesn't even make economic sense so we've raised it with them, we'll continue to do it.

Yeah, it's disappointing, I mean, I've spent my whole life going back and forth to Canada, I'm a a curler, uh I've also graduated from the Silver Room Curling School, I showed my horse up in Cana- in in Canada and uh in uh Toronto. And you know, our Canadian counterparts have come to meet with us frequently. They talk about us, they wanna talk about the tariffs. However, they don't appear willing to actually address this issue, as you've described, and we really need to, to really forge this relationship with our Canadian c- counterparts. Ambassador Greer, um, is there any message you would like to give to our Canadian counterparts, a gett- about getting them to the table? I've met with premiers, uh, and met with, uh, you know, the - the parliamentarians from all across the region, uh, the northern - northern Canada, all the way from the north to the - to the south, to the east, everywhere, uh, and west. What could - would you like - how do we get them to come to the table and - and bring back this relationship that is so important for our farmers or business owners, everyone? Uh, we - you know, we value the relationship with Canada, especially someone like me who's grown up just, you know, an hour and a half or so from the Canadian border. uh and really value their friendship but also wanna see them come to the table. I hate to see our great ally being aligned with the People's Republic of China when it comes to trade with the US.

Uh well a couple things and you know fir- first of all I don't you know I don't negotiate in public right so uh so I'm not gonna go into too much detail but you know

OK.

the second point I'll make is you know I have good relationships with my direct counterparts and and we we speak uh you know we talk about things. I have been pretty consistent over the past year that if we can um, you know, get some changes in Canadian trade practices, uh, you know, it's gonna help me get over the political hump that we face here in the United States. So, I think there are things that can be done. I've been pretty clear with the Canadians on a variety of things. Anyone can read the national trade estimate to have a sense of the kind of things I've asked them to work on. Um, so I, you know, I'm gonna continue having conversations with these folks behind closed doors, um, but I hope we can get over the hump on some of these things to have significant talks.

Thank you, I yield I I really appreciate your effort on these and uh let's hope we can come, come to a great I love US Canada Day uh with our countries coming together. Uh I now uh recognize Mrs. Fischbach from Minnesota.

It's so far away that it's hard to but uh thank you Madam Chair and thank you, Ambassador Greer, for being here. I appreciate the opportunity to um just uh ask a couple of questions but i do uh first of all i wanna add my voice to um the concerns that mister stewby raised regarding the sugar issue um and uh and the imports and as a matter of fact uh uh neil rockstead a sugar beet grower from my district uh testified last year at the uh brazil three O one investigation um about what's what's causing the issues and so uh just uh anything that we can do to deal with that issue They they are they are being devastated by the unfettered imports of sugar. So but um as USTR and the Ways and Means Committee prepare for USMCA, cuz that is also I'm from Minnesota so that's a a a big issue for me, uh the reauthorization. The turkey industry is seeking parity in how the tariff rate quota the TRQs is calculated. Currently the formula ties the US quota to Cani uh to Canada's fluctuating domestic production. resulting in unpredictable year-to-year volumes that create challenges for producers. Um, as you continue to engage with the agricultural stakeholders, can you commit to working on those TRQs, uh, regarding turkey, um, ahead of the USMCA reauthorization?

Uh, we will. And we had a public comment process. Uh, so we've engaged with stakeholders on this.

And, and I know you mentioned that you don't negotiate in public, but I'm just kind of wondering, you know, where we're at on that, if there's any, oh. what's going on with it. If there's anything you can comment on that.

I - I would just say, and further to my conversation with uh Representative Tenney, you know, wi- with the Canadians, we're in an earlier stage of conversations. We have a variety of issues that we think are not consistent with USMCA right now, and we'd like the Canadians to comply with those things right now. Uh, it - it's - it's hard to move on to a broader conversation about how to improve the agreement when we don't feel like we have compliance with the initial one. But the - the Turkey issue and the TRQs, you know, when we get to that broader conversation we're gonna include that. I mean, we we already have flagged it in in various uh, you know, fora, but we can work on it in more detail uh, once we get some progress.

OK, because that is that is uh one of my priorities for USMCA. Um, but after President Trump and uh President Xi negotiated a trade truce in October, China made some commitments regarding US soybeans, twelve million metric tons for twenty twenty-five and twenty-five uh million metric tons for this year and the next two years. While those numbers represent roughly average soybean sales to China, according to our stake orders, China has not begun to purchase any new new crop soybeans for its twenty twenty-six commitment. Um, have you spoken with your Chinese counterparts about their commitments, and can you provide us an update on what's going on with that? Something we're watching.

Uh, we we do. We're watching it very closely. This is one of the core commitments. Uh, we have found in past years that China can be an unreliable purchaser. Uh, some years they'll buy, some years they won't, uh, you know, they'll use excuses. If we try to defend our markets, they'll turn off, uh, soybean purchases. Uh, so it's a challenging situation for our farmers to be dependent on this market. So what we've done is we have these commitments, solid commitments, volume commitments that are, you know, fairly easy to measure. The Chinese have essentially filled the twelve million from the last sales season and so now we're entering into the new season. uh we'll raise it with them we speak with our counterparts at the staff level and my level with some frequency uh and so we'll raise it to make sure that they fulfill that commitment

not to put you on spot but what happens if they don't

well if they don't have it remember essentially the terms of the deal is uh we agreed to you know at one point we had very very high tariffs on china now we just have high tariffs on china uh so the president has tools like that and other things uh as an enforcement mechanism the chinese know this Um, they wanna have stability as much as we do, uh, and so we feel very strongly that they will, uh, deliver on this. The president's gonna meet with President Xi in a few weeks, uh, to reinforce this. So we feel we feel confident. And then if they don't, we'll take our actions that we need to, but I don't I don't think we need to. I think they're gonna fulfill it.

Thank you very much. And, and I just wanna reiterate, uh, you know, USMCA and those trade deals are incredibly important to the folks in my district. Um, we have a heavy ag district and so, um,

uh I appreciate you taking their concerns to the table with you. So thank you very much for being here and I yield back.

Miss Del Bene. Mm.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um Ambassador Greer, uh thank you for being here today, appreciate it. Um every day I hear from constituents struggling to make ends meet. Um they tell me how groceries, gas, housing, health care and other basic needs are becoming increasingly unaffordable. And, um, the president's trade policies have been fueling this affordability crisis. When the Supreme Court struck down the president's illegal tariffs, there was a glimmer of hope that families could breathe a little easier. But hours later, you and the president said you'd reinstate those tariffs through other means. Um, now you're running seventy-six simultaneous section three O one processes and you set July as your target end date. Um, I'm skeptical that USTR can perform these many thorough factual reviews in just a few months. And I know the USTR statement from February twentieth says that you will comply with the substantive and procedural requirements. Um, but it appears to me that you're just going through the motions of the three O one process, when we all know how this story ends, um, with the reinstatement of tariffs that will continue to harm consumers and businesses and states. like my home state of Washington. So I had a few questions um about the process that's being run. Um first, Mexico is a target of your investigations, and under IEPA and section one twenty-two tariffs, goods that qualify under USMCA have been exempted. Um do you commit to exempting USMCA goods in any section three O one actions taken under these two investigations?

uh these are new investigations I can't prejudge the outcome or commit or pre-commit to an outcome.

So the whole point of the dispute settlement mechanism is to avoid unilateral tools, like section three O one. Um and so the tariff free treatment for qualifying goods in North America is kind of a cornerstone of our regionally integrated economy. And so I started with that question, cuz I was hoping that was something that was we would be able to easily agree on. And I'm disappointed to hear that the administration is willing to, you know, go against the trade deal and raise costs on working families if we don't have agreement that that's at least gonna be a cornerstone of it. Um, also section three O one requires that before tariffs can be put in place, you have to conduct re- rigorous investigations. And yet when you announced the three O one investigations, you cited Bangladeshi cement as a justification, yet Bangladesh hasn't exported cement to the United States since two thousand four um so how does that make sense as a justification

so so for for each country and many countries we listed a number of manufacturing areas where they have excess capacity manufacturing moves and ecosystems and so when we start an investigation we have prima facie evidence if we can see excess capacity in certain areas or we see a with the us it's enough to start an investigation which we'll conduct

but this is data from

and we'll do it rigorously using career staff

but this is data from two thousand four that you're yes using to justify actions now. Um, so

They they currently have excess capacity in cement, currently.

Will, um will USTR perform a through-out country-by-country uh analysis under each of the section three O one investigations?

Yes, we're already conducting consultations with countries who desire it. We've offered it to all the countries. We've conducted comment processes already and we are taking our time. The career staff are doing this. We're very focused. I trust our career staff. They're incredible, they do a very good job, and I'm very confident that they'll be thorough.

Um and and my understanding is that ea- for each section three O one investigation, the section three O one committee and the trade policy staff committee will each produce memos to justify their actions. Um will you commit to publishing these decision memos so that they're public and we can see the results of these?

I'll I'll have to assess with my general counsel. Some of these things are deliberative in nature, and so aren't subject to some of those disclosure rules.

Does the law prevent you from releasing those?

Uh, I'll have to look. I'll talk to my general counsel.

Um, okay, I'm not aware of any authority that prevents you from releasing, um, those memos and, uh, I think it's important for everyone to see the analysis, uh, to justify tariffs because it's been raising costs for families by thousands of dollars each year.

Well, we will put out a report on our findings to be sure, a federal register notice, and people can comment. It'll be quite transparent.

Um, and, uh, I know you think trade policy is working. I come from a trade dependent state, but if you think it's been a good idea, then, um, I think that, one, we should be coming to Congress. Um, the proposals should come before this committee. And, um, we should make sure that we are not continuing, uh, a legal taxation of my constituents and people across the country. Um, thank you again for being here. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Miss van duin.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador Greer, for joining us today. I know it has been a long morning and I appreciate your patience and your responses. Um, a clear demonstration of this administration's effective trade approach is how strong tariff policy has produced tangible results at our southern border. Uh, in response to tariff pressures, Mexico has surged thousands of national uh guard troops to their border. They have dramatically reduced illegal crossings to historic Lowe's achieved major seizures of fentanyl and precursor chemicals and extradited dozens of high-value cartel targets to face justice in the United States. Uh, and just for example, for comparison, uh, according to to Border Patrol data, average monthly Southwest border apprehensions were eighty-nine point six percent lower in the first year of the Trump two dot O uh, uh, compared to the final year of the Bid- Biden administration. Uh, this success proves that firm reciprocal trade tools are powerful instruments for advancing not only economic interests but also critical national security priorities we were down in Mexico a little over six weeks ago and had conversations with their elected officials, and nearly all of them said that they were cooperating and working with us because of the threat of tariffs. I think that's an important thing to to point out. Um, that's that's in part why I introduced H R sixty-nine ninety-one was Fair Trade Act of t- twenty twenty-six. And that was actually after a a round table with you when we discussed it. And it would impose additional fifteen percent tariffs on goods from countries from which the United States runs a trade deficit, and a ten percent uh on goods from countries where we run a surplus. I believe this bill perfectly complements USTR's twenty twenty-six trade policy agenda by providing concrete leverage to secure better market access, stronger enforcement of our trade agreements and genuine from our trading partners. I'd like to move on to some of the issues that are really important in Texas, uh, liquefied natural gas. Uh, first, can you tell us how important the expansion of LNG in investments in LNG exports along the Gulf Coast? Which represents, by the way, a hundred and eighty degree, uh, difference from the Biden administration, but especially in Texas have been for improving our trade imbalance, stabilizing global markets, and supporting our sometimes allies in Europe.

Uh, yes, this is a, this is an important way that we can help get our trade deficit down. Um, this has been significant over the past year as we've gone country to country, expressed our concern with the trade deficit. They've been very eager, uh, to increase imports from the United States, uh, agriculture, manufactured goods, and energy products. And LNG is really important, right? As you see, a country like Russia is an unreliable supplier, um, and we have been able to fill gaps. uh we have the Europeans have committed to buying more LNG, uh we have a lot of countries that have committed to this, so we're we're exporting it. It's it's really critical and it also obviously helps our overall petrochemical industry.

Well, the the president's tremendous success in Venezuela, you know, the the legacy media has largely ignored the entire topic of Venezuelan oil, but how important for the Western hemisphere and our ability to deal with our adversaries like China is the Texas refining capacity of Venezuelan oil.

Uh, well, this i- this is really significant. Um, and when it comes to, you know, trade in o- in gas and oil, um, a lot of it depends on your downstream refining capacity. And so our our Texas facilities are, um, are optimized to process that crude coming in from Venezuela. So this is a great opportunity that the president has secured, um, frankly, that energy supply chain. I mean, Venezuela has some of the largest reserves on earth. So between US reserves, Venezuelan reserves, We have energy security uh for decades into the future.

It's too bad nobody else is talking about it, but I appreciate you bringing that up. Um, switch to back to back to Mexico. I know that you and I have had conversations and understand that it's bipartisan on this on this committee um for Volca Materials and some of our other businesses and how they're being treated in Mexico can you just come give us an update uh on the latest uh of this situation and do you see a path forward or a resolution?

So the Mexican government has been in talks uh and we've tried to facilitate that i was with the president of mexico a couple of days ago and i personally raised it uh you know with her or with the trade uh commissioner and you know i don't wanna you know go into details of this conversations all i can say is uh the mexicans know this is an issue that needs to be settled um if the if they want to have a constructive trade relationship with the us you know companies that go down there whether they're extractive industry or infrastructure or something like that where we're you know providing services you know down there they need to have companies

I appreciate that, and I hope that they know how these actions are gonna affect negotiations for the USMCA. Appreciate it very much and I yield back.

Mister Feenstra.

Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you, Ranking Member Neal, for holding this hearing today. Uh, Ambassador Greer, I just wanna applaud you. I wanna say thank you for what you're doing for the American farmer. Uh, I represent one of the largest ag districts in the country, uh, when it comes to Iowa and my district, we lead in corn, soybeans, pork, eggs, biofuels, and there's a lot of trade that we've been doing in those capacities. When I talk to the farming community, you know, they don't want a handout. They just want open markets, and that's why this is so, so important. Um, I wanna just talk a little bit about the pork producers. They're facing anti-dumping and countervailing duties cases that are more political in nature than purely economic. Uh, you've just come back from Mexico where a lot of these issues are somewhat prev prevalent. Can you talk about what your office is doing to ensure U. S. pork producers are not caught up in the crossfire of retaliation?

Uh, yes. I, I, as you mentioned I just came back from Mexico, I raised this specific issue. Uh, my sense is if, a- and again there has been no retaliation thus far, which is very important to to note. Um, and I don't think we can have a deal with Mexico if we have retaliatory issues like that. I think the Mexicans understand that too.

Yeah, well thank you, thank you. And then uh our our soybean producers, you know China is so important and and they are steadily purchasing their commitments and I'm so grateful for that also. Um, how do you the the US-China board of trade that's being set up and developing, how do you s think the more permanent board of trade will help and insure China sticks to the purchasing agreement and provides better uh access for US producers. How do you see that playing out?

Well, remember, you know, the Chinese economy is a command economy. Um, you know, they have something that passes as a private sector, but it's really beholden to the to the government and the party. In the US we try to have as much of a free market economy, capitalist economy as we can. And so those economies don't fit together very well. So the board of trade is a mechanism, a government-governed mechanism, where we can engage on terms that are mutually acceptable with the Chinese. they're gonna have a managed economy then they can manage importing from the us uh we

true yes

can we can identify those goods that we really think are important for us to sell to them and we can identify goods that we're willing to buy from them as well mostly in non sensitive sectors there's a lot of non non sensitive mutually beneficial trade we can do with the chinese but it has to be it has to have some predictability

true well i would love to open more markets there and continue to see them uh buy our goods uh ambassador uh india remains probably one of the most restrictive markets when it comes to agriculture and i'm excited to see the progress that the two parties are working with a us uh india uh trade agreement trade framework framework uh when i look at my state the country you know we do a lot with distillers grain called dds we do a lot with soybean meal uh this could be a great opportunity for export markets uh and even ethanol into india uh can you talk about where we're at and what we can do to encourage uh india in in having more of our ag products uh being represented over there

uh yeah so you'll know that we have a joint framework agreement with india uh that we signed that sets out the general terms of our agreement the indian trade negotiators negotiators are in town this week um so we've been talking this week about these issues and including about these specific commodities you talked about ddg's et cetera india is a tough nut to crack uh you know they've protected their agricultural markets for a very long time as part of this deal they're gonna wanna protect a lot of that still there there are things though where i think we can uh find mutual agreement you know d d g is a good example of this

yep good and then finally i just wanna talk about uh ethanol uh we have a great opportunity uh domestic fuel uh for the us and then abroad and we see more and more countries around the world uh using ethanol uh do you see any opportunity for other countries we did a great job with uk in in having us ethanol being exported there Do you see other opportunities that we can uh export more ethanol to other countries like Asia and so forth?

Uh, sure, we we do have a variety of countries that have agreed to reduce their tariffs on ethanol, uh, for for US imports. You mentioned the UK agreement where we opened up, you know, a billion liter market. Um, I am we have an a we're talking to the Brazilians about this as well. The trade relationship is a little more fraught right now, uh, but we're talking to them about ethanol. I think they're

Yep. Yep. Well, Ambassador, thank you for answering my questions and thank you for all that you're doing for the ag industry and I continue to look at creating new markets for our farmers. Thank you so much.

Mister Boyle.

Well

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador, for being here. Uh, I I'm sorry to say this, but in my opinion the administration's trade agenda has been nothing short of According to the Trump-appointed Republican Federal Reserve Chair, it is this administration's reckless tariffs that have been the major driver of the rise of rise in inflation. These policies have raised prices, disrupted global trade, and made it harder for American businesses to plan and invest because the policies have been so erratic and unpredictable. Now, It is clear that Americans are experiencing an affordability crisis, but that crisis has two sides to it. The rising costs, as I just mentioned, but also the stagnant wages, the other side of the equation. Focusing on costs alone misses half the problem. Wages have stagnated for years, and workers who attempt to organize or bargain for better pay are often told to accept less or risk losing their livelihoods as companies threaten, to offshore jobs. That pressure has both shuttered factories and held down wages even where jobs remain. Unfortunately, I know this firsthand, having fought unsuccessfully to oppose the offshoring of hundreds of Nabisco factory jobs in my own very district in Philadelphia. This is a factory that had been there for many decades. Now those jobs are in Mexico, where workers there earn pennies on the dollars that were being earned by American workers at that Nabisco factory. Workers still face this race to the bottom, now more than ever. So, Ambassador, as we approached the USMCA review in just under two months, I wanted to know what you were doing specifically to finally stop the continued offshoring of these jobs and ensure workers finally see meaningful pay increases.

Uh, thank you. I'm I'm glad you're concerned about this issue. Uh, in advance of US um, uh, USMCA review, we've initiated section three O one investigations in Mexico and Canada, both on forced labor issues as well as structural overcapacity with respect to Mexico. And in result, the US steel workers put out a statement welcoming US to our investigations. The IAM union backs the investigations. The UAW applauds us for doing this. AFL CIO lauded it. So we're working hand in hand uh with the with these unions to do this uh you know we think the tariffs are an important point to do this we think when we took down our tariff barriers uh we had a lot of offshoring and now we wanna re-shore and so uh sometimes i get confused when people say we don't want tariffs we want to re-shore um it we we we have to we have to be coherent about this

well uh hold on yeah i i

we have the first tariffs to re-shore

i excuse reclaiming my time cause i only got two minutes here so um to be clear there are times that i have supported tariffs However, there's a big difference between the tariffs that I have supported and the ones this administration has erratically put in place. The tariffs I've supported are industry-specific and country-specific. That's very different than the trade policy of this administration. But in the remaining time we have, if we can just shift on moving forward, what specific commitments this administration and you specifically are looking for in the review of USMCA, specifically with respect to Mexico.

Um, so, so first of all, we would expect that any rules of origin be updated if we're gonna have preferential trade with Mexico. Uh, I cannot have a situation where China or Vietnam or other third countries are using Mexico as an export hub uh, to undermine US workers and manufacturers. That's why the unions have been so supportive of what we're doing on tariffs. Uh, so that's one thing. Uh, I would say that another thing, we want the Mexicans to follow their own labor laws, uh, which w- was

Yeah. Our, Are are, and just to be clear, and just to be clear, I mean, I mean, USMCA, USMCA, which I voted for, which I voted for, and frankly I think the vast majority of Congress on both sides of the aisle voted for, and frankly I think the vast majority of Congress on both sides of the isle voted for, I did not think it was perfect. I did not think it was perfect. I think there are a number of things in it that need to be improved, but I thought overall USMCA was an improvement upon the deeply flawed naphtha or naphtha that it uh that it updated. I hope that as we go through this review we can see even more improvements uh and I'll be happy to follow up specifically in a letter on some ideas that I have in ways that we can make it better and our trade policy is fair for not just American consumers but also American workers. With that I yield back.

Mister Moore.

Thank you, Chairman. Ambassador Greer, great to see you again. Um before I jump into some they're I think pretty s- pretty sp- basic straightforward questions. Um just uh for all the times we get a hearing like this or in a few interactions, I I'll just say that like the ability to connect with your team, work with your team, uh f- supersedes any of these simple things that we get to do today. So thank you for that. The World Trade Center of Utah, as you know, is one of the most substantive organizations that's focused on all the right measures and trying to navigate always troubled waters with this topic for y- for for decades. Um, and they would feel the same to be able to have, uh, an ability to work with you all and it's, um, it it's very much appreciated, so thank you. I understand you just came back from Mexico City for bilateral discussions, uh, with Mexico within the context of USMCA. One of my biggest concerns has to do with the auto sector and the risk that we end up in a situation where we have kind of one set of rules for origin and content requirements for Mexico another set for for Canada, and I can't help but think that this would make it harder for North America to maintain its competitive advantage against adversaries like China in the automotive production space um and that it would discourage auto companies from creating jobs in the US. How are you working on your renegotiations with USMCA to include strong provisions on domestic content while also providing that level of consistency and predictability you know for all three markets?

Yeah. thank you i mean this is essentially a rules of origin question uh we want to manufacture in united states you know have a north american supply chain and we wanna make sure that that has um that that can compete against you know vehicles coming from japan or korea or germany or anywhere else uh so we're in we're in conversation with the auto companies the auto parts suppliers and frankly the unions on this i think they they have a you know a share a shared view um so we're happy to talk to them there is some overlap with the commerce department section two thirty two uh which has the global auto tariff regime so i'll i'll work with them uh to make sure that whatever rules of origin we have uh enhance competitiveness in north america, and don't detract from it.

Thank you, I I have um and this addresses a lot of other areas like we're we're in a unique spot that we probably haven't ever been for in our in our inter- international relationships with some sincere adversaries, like making sure that we have a strong north america, US will lead in this um but we've gotta be able to compete against um China in in multiple areas, this is this is one of them, so thanks for being at and making sure it's a it's a strong focus for your team. Next topic is actually um the importance of a stable flow of potash uh United States and Canada. Utah is one of only three states in the country that actually produces potash, specifically sulfate potash for premium crops like berries and fruit bs fruit but this makes up a small overall percentage of the US potash consumption, ninety five percent of our potash comes from abroad, seventy nine of which comes from Canada. Our domestic producers are reliant on a strong and stable trading relationship with Canada to prevent potash prices from spiking thus hurting both domestic partners or produ wholly both the domestic producers as well as domestic consumers, like farmers. Uh how can we ensure that this product uh which has which has a ton of Utah farmers that they rely on this does not emerge as a as a bargaining chip per se and and and some potential issues with USMCA renegotiations.

Uh, well through everything we've done in the last year in setting, you know, a kind of a baseline global tariff and higher tariffs on on large surplus countries, uh, in all these cases, Podash has never been, uh, subject to changing trade policy. We've just kept the same trade policy as before.

Excellent. So you don't you're you're the concern that this becomes a major bargaining chip and becomes you're you're not as concerned about that.

Uh, I mean, we we haven't we haven't messed with it. We haven't put tariffs on Podash. It's just kept flowing from Canada. So it's, um, you know, we we view that as a certain flow.

Excellent, thank you. Uh, and back in February, last question, yeah, USTR requested public feedback on the development of a plurilateral trade agreement on critical minerals, which would enhance the resilience of critical mineral supply chains and the downstream industries that depend on them. Can you provide an update on the timeline for these negotiations? What are your top priorities to address collectively with, uh, like-minded allies and partners? Um, the state of Utah is a rising player in this space. Uh there's there's massive potential here that would, you know, benefit our our nation. Uh how can state and local level officials impact these discussions positively?

Uh sure, so our our office is developing a draft text that we can share with uh with allies. We're going to share it first with Congress and congressional staff to have review and get feedback directly uh from Congress on that. Uh and then we'll share with allies who are in a in a good position uh to be able to start negotiating uh you know we have action plans on critical minerals with mexico and japan for example uh and we are looking at specific minerals just to almost run an experiment on and and and look at the data look at supply look at demand if we need some kind of a protective price floor to insure the economics workout what would that look like how would you determine it and that kind of thing uh so that's moving along and then other agencies are doing stockpiles and a lot of other things too

excellent thank you so much chairman

miss mali tacos

thank you very much ambassador appreciate you being here today Uh, I wanna echo an issue that some of my colleagues had brought up already, uh those of us from either California or New York, we really care about uh the wine industry, our wineries and distilleries are really getting hurt uh for about a year now, when several Canadian provinces effectively shut down American wine, spirits and beer. And the impact has been significant, it's about a seventy-eight percent drop in American wine exports to Canada, and this represents about a three hundred and million dollar loss over the past year so as uh we're moving forward with this USMCA review and you're having conversations I just want to echo what my colleagues uh have said strongly encourage you to prioritise this issue uh with your Canadian counterparts and I and I trust that you will um and I've also brought this up with Secretary Lutnik as well um but I do wanna talk about another issue relating to the USMCA it is about Cuban doctors. Uh this is a Basically what's happening here is Mexico is participating in what amounts to forced labor, slave, uh human trafficking, um and i- it's a, it's a basically a forced labor scheme run by the Cuban Communist regime. In February I did join several of my colleagues, I wrote a letter, a two year office flag flagging this issue. There is a loophole currently in article twenty-three point six, um and I'd like to submit this for the record, Mister Chairman, I will also give you a copy as well.

Without objection.

Uh, but basically Mexico pays the Cuban government billions of dollars to contract doctors and medical professionals. But the regime, the Communist regime keeps that money, really doesn't get to the actual workers. And these doctors, they fir- face coercive uh practices uh by their government, like passport confiscation, wage withholding, surveillance, restrictions on movement, family contact, uh and these are all documented by the State Department and human rights groups. And now with President Trump and Secretary of State putting pressure on Cuba. It is, it is the right time to fix this wrong in this agreement, and I urge you to use the twenty twenty-six review process to press Mexico on this issue ensure that there's clarification of article twenty-three point six in uh, the USMCA, and directly or indirectly to e- to to stop subsidizing forced labor and human trafficking and interestingly enough uh the agreement actually recognizes a legal trafficking as a threat to legitimate commerce. So it's shocking that the trafficking of forced labor of humans, uh, whether it's carried out through government-run medical missions or service links to trade relationship are not addressed with equal prioritization.

Uh, thank you, you know, forced labor is a is an important uh issue uh for the administration. The United States is chairing the G-twenty this year on forced labor. is one of the issues we're talking about. We're conducting a section three O one investigation on forced labor, including with respect to Mexico. Uh, so it's certainly something that's top of mind for us, and we'll take a closer look at some of the things you've talked about.

Yeah. I appreciate that, cuz as I said, this is putting billions of dollars in the pockets of Cuba's communist regime at a time when our president and our secretary of state are trying to economically cripple them in hopes that we'll see some regime change. So I think this is the right time for us to to take that action, uh, to echo what they're trying to achieve. Um, and what I'll, what I'll also say is that uh I have a medical supply chain resiliency act. I've brought this up before. I know a lot of the conversation today was about removing uh our alliance on uh China shifting more to reliable partners bringing it home where we can uh I have a a bill medical supply chain resiliency act, which is bipartisan in this committee and it basically uh gives the administration the tools to establish trusted trade partnerships uh with reliable allies um to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers to strengthen medical device and uh pharmaceutical supply chain. Is that something you feel could be a tool in your toolbox as you're moving forward?

Uh, that's possible. I think our staff should talk about it. Uh, we have some trade actions related to pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and I think if Congress has some some tools to help with reshoring and supply chain security that would that could be helpful.

Right, great.

Thank you.

Could you give, since I have a few seconds left, could you just give us an update where you're at on some of those uh trade deals and where you see the most opportunity to uh move our supply chain out of china and and and friend shore it

uh certainly i i would say with respect to pharmaceuticals uh this is actually an area where i've been i've been really encouraged on on re-shoring because we have a lot of examples of specific commitments uh from pharmaceutical companies to build here and you know listen we always hear from a lot of companies i'm gonna invest x or i'm gonna build this Um but we are actually seeing concrete in the ground and superstructures going up.

Yes.

Um you know

Yeah and I congratulate the administration that they have gotten trillions of dollars in investments from all different industries to to reassure and and produce here. Does that include APIs? Actual pharmaceutical ingredients that we would need obviously to make the medicine.

Uh Yeah that that that is a that is a trickier situation.

Yeah.

Uh it's not just trade on that, it's also permitting. Uh the reason why some of that left was environmental rules. We're trying to uh have twenty first century permitting and regulatory so we can get apis back as these as these companies come back um the the ecosystem comes along with them and so we think that having the manufacturers here the apis and key starting materials will follow

great well i look forward to working with you and i appreciate your time

mister pineda

thank you mr. chairman thank you mr. greer for being here as you know we're just over a year past liberation day yet the president's tariffs haven't freed us from the inflation and high costs that he promised to reduce. But when you have an effective tariff rate of eleven percent, the highest since nineteen forty-three, it makes it pretty tough to keep those types of promises. Today the chairman talked about it, and yesterday I actually met with your Ag Trade Representative, who also talked about the few deals that the administrative administration has entered into. She actually took the time to personally engage with us, something that your predecessors did, something that I've suggested you to do, but something that you have yet to do outside this room. But this administration goes it alone, especially with these types of deals that definitely are not enough to create manufacturing, lower costs, and increased jobs. In fact, the implementation of this administration's trade policy, which has been based on this president's forty-year fetish with tariffs, are hurting the American economy, the American worker, and the American consumer. I see it in my district. Small businesses, from florists to farmers, are hurting due to the cost of inputs for their products. Overseas markets relied on are being lost to our competitors, and according to the Yale Budget Lab, American households stand to lose between six hundred and fifty dollars to thirteen hundred dollars. Now, when the Supreme Court struck down the reciprocal tariffs under IEPA the administration had an opportunity to reset instead you doubled down and you leaned in on section three O one and two thirty-two. But to get there The president immediately imposed ten percent tariffs using section one twenty-two of the seventy-four Trade Act as a temporary bridge. Now, one twenty-two doesn't provide the president with broad tariff powers. Instead, it only authorizes a president to proclaim temporary duties or quotas when there is an international payments problem like a balance of payment deficit crisis, that then mandates a president to impose special import measures to restrict imports. Now look, I get you claim that there is a spending problem that's been intentional and deliberate for the last forty years, but we don't have an int- international payments problem. Now, Mister Greer, since one twenty-two was created, tariffs have never been implemented unt- under one twenty-two before this year, correct?

That's right.

And that's because we've never had a balance of payment deficit crisis, which you need to invoke tariffs under one twenty-two.

We've had one, but the deficit is loaded to one point six trillion.

Reclaiming my time. One twenty-two is antiquated and it's inapplicable.

There's data.

It was created as a way to fix a situation when we are on the gold standard, and there is a crisis in which there is too much currency flowing out of the country. That is a balance of payment deficit crisis that one twenty-two was designed to prevent. But we've never had that situation, mainly b- because, as you stated earlier, our dollar isn't tied to gold or any commodity, In fact, it floats and adjusts on the open market. That means our dollar value is unaffected by the amount of US currency overseas. Moreover, we got way too much foreign investment in the US that offsets any money going out of the US. So it's very, very difficult to have a large and serious balance of payments deficit problem under section one twenty-two. And in fact, your administration, the Trump administration, argued this in VOS selections versus Trump. In that case, the DOJ actually argued that tariffs were applicable under IPA and not one twenty-two. The administration even stated that section one twenty-two, and I quote, has no obvious application here, unquote, because the administration claimed trade deficits are, quote, "conceptually distinct from the balance of payments crisis necessary for one twenty-two apply." Yet five hours after the Supreme decision in learning resources that struck down the president's tariffs under IEPA, the president then issued an executive order using one twenty-two to impose tariffs. Now despite your administration previously arguing that one twenty-two doesn't apply, you're now arguing that it does apply. Look, I disagree with that. The courts are gonna find that it disagrees, uh that they disagree with that. And so the argument will be, that you're gonna make, is that IEPA tariffs are gone, so you now need to impose tariffs under one twenty-two, to prevent a balance of payments crisis as a preventative measure. But under that reasoning, you could have invoked one twenty-two any time over the past year. And as much as you're acting disinterested right now, you need to realize that one twenty-two can't be used as a preventative measure, since one twenty-two states that the president shall act and not may act, when import restrictions are needed to address a balance of payments deficit crisis. You need a balance of payments deficit crisis and you don't have it. That's why you didn't invoke one twenty-two prior to the Supreme Court decision. And that's why the Trump administration argued that one twenty-two couldn't be invoked to impose tariffs. Section one twenty-two is antiquated. It isn't applicable and it's irrelevant, and why I have legislation to get rid of it and reimburse my constituents who are being screwed over by President Trump's tariffs. I yield back. Mister Kerry.

I want to thank the uh chairman and the ranking member and definitely you, Ambassador. Um, I'm gonna try to hit on three issues. Um, I'd like to talk about Chinese vapes, also like to talk about the Chinese drones, and then if we have time, I'd like to dive into the pharmaceuticals, and what I don't get a chance to ask, I will submit for the record. Um, as you are aware, the Chinese State Tobacco Monopoly Administration has deliberately allowed a massive influx of illegal e-cigarette, smart vape, devices into the United States. Now these devices um in large part are marketed on social media forms such as TikTok and they c- uh Chinese smart vape d- vape devices. Uh, you know, there are serious concerns about the cyber security is related to that. Um, because of a lot of the issues surrounding the these vapes, um, I led an a- a effort in a letter to USTR and Treasury, which was signed by over seventy members uh of the House, uh urging that this issue be elevated uh during the trade negotiations with China, which I believe you're having in a couple weeks. Um, and of course this is very timely with the President's meeting with President Xi. Uh, you know, I know there are a lot of issues uh that are on the agenda for this, and I would hope that this could be one of those issues that you could raise during your uh negotiations with the Chinese, would that be something you might be willing to do?

Uh, let me talk to our team and see if there's an opportunity. I I received your letter and we know this is important to you, it's important to us too as an administration. We've taken a lot of domestic measures to try to seize these types of illegal vapes, uh and so at the appropriate time we can raise with the Chinese too.

And Ambassador, I do appreciate that, and I do appreciate your staff's work with my with my team on these issues. Um Second, I'm gonna touch upon the the Chinese drones, and this is a concept that uh, you know, those of us that don't follow drone technology as closely every single day, but one of the one of the issues that I found, and I'm not speaking anecdotally, but but some of the facts um that we have found that the Chinese company of DGI has around eighty percent of all the commercial drone market here in the United States. Many of this, many of these drones present a serious national security threat. to our nation. I don't think there's any um any doubt about that. Many of these drones are performing surveillance in certain areas. Township Trustees, you know, uh uh County Engineers use them and cover our bridges and overpasses and all of these things. Um so while this commercial drone t- uh industry in this country, the fact of the matter is these products are not going anywhere in the short term, and we know that. With that in context,

Well, I I I will say that in our trade and economic discussions, um, we we do not get too much into national security concerns with the with the Chinese. We don't wanna be in a position where we're negotiating, you know, things like that. Rather what we do as an administration is take actions domestically. Uh, the FCC, for example, recently took an action uh to prohibit new versions of foreign drones, you know, Chinese or otherwise,

Yep.

um, to - to help guard against these kinds of things.

OK, and I - and I appreciate that. And - and I - and I completely understand that. And - and Ohio is open for business for all the drone technology. We've got some great, uh, uh, facilities in Springfield, Ohio, which is in my district, uh, as well as in Columbus. I want to talk a little bit about medical supplies. Um, you worked with the USU uh and UK agreement on pharmac- pharmaceutical pricing. Really appreciate all your efforts as it related to the technologies and future tariffs under section two thirty-two and section three O one. We definitely applaud your efforts. Uh, exempting medical supplies from trusted trading partners is critical to ensuring that we have a resilient supply chains as it relates to multiple sources of both cost effective and cost-efficient, life-saving devices. Is the USTR considering similar language in other country-specific deals to ensure that medical providers don't face further tariff-related costs of increase for medical supplies?" You have twenty seconds.

Well, what we're trying to do is we're trying to make sure that other countries accept our FDA certifications for medical devices, so we have market access there, and we're trying to reassure medical devices here and

Mister Ambassador, we definitely thank you for your time, and with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Mister uh Mister Yacoum.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Ambassador Greer, it's great to see you again. Thanks for being here. I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle complaining constantly about tariff authorities. And I couldn't help but wonder, what would they do if they held all the levers of power? Well, they did hold the trifecta of power in twenty twenty-one and twenty twenty-two. This committee marked up over seventeen hundred pages worth of partisan and bipartisan bills which I have right here. Uh, Ambassador Greer, of these seventeen hundred pages, how many would you guess amended tariff authorities?

Probably zero.

Uh, that is correct. Uh, that would be zero. Zero changes to section two thirty-two, three O one, one twenty-two or IPA. If it's so important, why didn't they change the law when they had the trifecta of power? The complaints now ring hollow. They had two years to amend tariff authorities, but instead they chose the green new uh scam, green boondoggles, and massive spending that stoked generational inflation. I was glad to see the administration create Annex three in recognition of the fact that there are certain products and commodities that are not grown or produced here. And I was so excited when we finally clinched Annex three treatment for Luon Marble.

Uh, I think what I can say on this, because the investigations are ongoing and we can't prejudge, But t- to the extent that the agreements on reciprocal trade mitigate any of the problematic trading practices we find then we'll certainly take those into account.

Thank you, sir. Uh, I've heard from a number of businesses back home that want to expand their operations here in the United States and hire more people. But doing so often requires in importing machinery, which certainly scrambles the economics of the investment. Now sometimes this is a a brand preference, but a lot of the time the machinery that they need to expand their factory, just simply isn't made here or can't be made here. In some cases, these are not multi-million dollar deals that'll make national headlines, but they'd be huge for the communities where investment is happening. How can we get relief for some of these companies that want to invest and grow jobs here, but are also stuck in that catch-twenty-two?

Uh, sure. So, so just a few things on this. First of all, we do have the Small Business Administration, uh, that has opened a, a portal to help match up producers in America with supplier, or, you know, suppliers and customers in america with with each other uh they also have some loan programs if there's a cash flow issue we have the big beautiful bill where folks can expense capital goods and that usually will include if there's a tariff impact it'll include that uh i would also say a couple of weeks ago the commerce department made an adjustment to the steel tariffs and derivatives some of these machine tools i think fell under derivatives some of these ended up being excluded altogether uh from from that action and are subject to just a different and lower tariff rate And we've also made compliance uh simpler for that. And and as we go forward as we have, you know, section three O one or other investigations, we welcome comments during the public process on uh views on things that should have tariffs or shouldn't.

Thank you, and and seeing something uh happen in that regard, even for smaller uh companies, smaller manufacturers that may not have a domestic uh option here at all, I think would be uh a very good thing. So thank you, sir. Uh as it currently stands, the twenty five percent section two thirty-two auto tariffs put North America's auto industry at a disadvantage. when compared to the fifteen percent auto tariff for the EU, Japan and South Korea and then ten percent for the UK. Is there a plan to reconcile or recalibrate section two thirty-two auto tariffs as a part of or alongside the USMCA review?

Uh, so as we do the USMCA review, we do have to coordinate with the Department of Commerce, uh, because they have the autos two three two and USMC has the auto rules of origin. So we'll coordinate with them certainly. Uh, the Commerce Department has made accommodation uh for Mexico and for for for our domestic auto producers who are bringing in uh goods and products that have US content and they can have a parts offset uh to some degree uh to help have a transition to more production here in the US.

Thank you. And as you know when the original USMCA deal was announced it included tariff relief from section two thirty-two steel and aluminum tariffs in Canada and Mexico are you negotiating on steel and aluminum as a part of or alongside the USMCA review process?

Well, the Canadians and the Mexicans certainly want some kind of adjustment. Uh, President Trump has been very clear that it's important to have tariffs on on these items, and they've been effective. We have a, you know, the Gary Works uh is is reopening or, excuse me, Granite City Works is reopening, which is a great, a great outcome. Uh, we shipped more steel last year than Japan for the first time in a very long time. Uh, so Canada and Mexico are asking uh for adjustments. Uh, anything on that front the president would have to approve.

Right. Thank you, Ambassador Greer, for being here. Thanks to your staff for continuing to work with my team on these important issues. I do appreciate it. Mister Chairman, I yield back. Mister Horsford.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and to the ranking member. Ambassador Greer, welcome back. Uh, it's been a year since you last, uh, came before this committee in public hearing. And I wanna start with the people who paid the price for the choices that have been made over the past year. Ambassador, the Supreme Court has now ruled that these blanket tariffs are illegal. This hearing should be about one thing, getting the American people their money back. So let me ask you something that should be pretty easy, yes or no. Do you believe American families deserve refunds for the higher prices that they paid under tariffs the Supreme Court has now ruled illegal? Yes or no?

So I I think,

Yes or no, Mr. Greer?

you know, if we could get the Biden inflation of twelve percent back to the consumers,

Mr. Greer.

that would be a great start.

K, I will take that as a no.

Democratic attorneys general asked for the tariff revenue to go to companies.

Reclaim me my time, reclaim me my time, reclaim me my time,

That's what they wanted. That's what they asked for.

but you can't answer the b- a very basic question. Yes or no to the American people who paid the price through taxes that were imposed illegally by this administration. That's why I've introduced the relief act. to guarantee automatic refunds in ninety days. No games, no gimmicks, no applications, no red tape, no favoritism, just getting the people their money back. That is what this should be about because families were paying more while someone else was profiting. And I wanna move to that. At our last hearing, you said, and I quote, This, no, this is not market manipulation. But since then, we've seen a clear pattern. Tariffs are announced, markets move. A sudden reversal follows, markets move, and then the tariffs resume, one over and over again. Mister Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit to the record ten articles documenting concerns about market-moving policy actions and trading activities around them.

Without objection.

Thank you. Ambassador, eighteen minutes before last year's tariff paused, eighteen minutes, traders placed enormous bets that the market would surge. And forty-six minutes before the President's announcement on Iran negotiations just that last week, someone shorted the oil market by hundreds of millions of dollars. Markets don't move like that by accident. And it raises serious questions about market manipulation and insider trading inside Donald Trump's administration. You told this committee that the original terror pause was part of the plan. Well, if that's true, then that plan was worth billions to anyone who knew about it in advance, at the expense of hard-working Americans. That's wrong. And it raises a very simple question. who knew it and who profited off of the backs of the American people. It stinks. And at a minimum, it warrants an investigation. That's why I led a letter with a hundred and thirty other Democrats asking for answers about the Liberation Day tariff pause. We still haven't re- received a response from you, Mister Ambassador. Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter dated April eleventh, twenty twenty five uh into the record.

Without objection.

So Ambassador, let me ask you. What steps have you taken specifically to ensure that no one under your supervision is trading on non-public market moving information?

Uh, we have ethics rules uh that are imposed and every every government employee, whether they're a political or whether they're career staff, They have to follow these rules. Every year we, you know, those who are in high positions, they have to fill out a form that says what trades they have.

So, Mister Ambassador, you're saying this is about a form.

And so we turn those in.

Someone with access to your information is

You have to say what you trade.

actively moving markets minutes before announcements. Existing safeguards are clearly not working. Instead of delivering relief to working people, this administration is allowing insiders to profit while everyone else pays more. I wanna move on to one last thing.

It's just not true. It's just, that's just not true.

You said in your last testimony that we would have ninety deals in ninety days.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did.

I don't think I said that.

You, I asked you specifically.

Ninety days and ninety deals in ninety days?

That's what you said.

I don't think I said that.

So how many do we have done?

I don't think I said that. Uh, we have, we have eighteen

Eighteen of ninety. In my book, that is a failing grade.

I didn't say ninety deals in ninety days.

Your testimony gloats how you've made just as many trade deals during your tenure as free trade agreements since nineteen eighty-five but you know better than anyone that those free trade agreements went through Congress and if you don't know that then we have a bigger problem because the reality is there is no trade agreement that isn't binding, that isn't enforceable, and that no one has the opportunity to review. None of them have gone through Congress. Meanwhile, they are costing the American people more. And to me, the American pe- people deserve better. They deserve their money back. They deserve accountability for the market manipulation and the insider trading.

There's none of those.

They deserve transparency. And right now, they're not getting any of that from this administration. We deserve better.

I yield back, Mr. Bean. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you. Good afternoon, ways and means.

and uh especially to our uh honored guest Ambassador Greer, welcome back, we're glad to have you here. Since the early nineties America has lost over ninety thousand manufacturing firms or plants or companies in the United States that either have closed or gone overseas cuz just they couldn't compete with foreign uh the the foreign markets that are bringing things here to to uh to sell. Uh with that comes the loss of over five m- million manufacturing jobs. Let me tell you what you and President Trump have done. You've said, " Enough! We're not gonna stand for it anymore. We're gonna jump in and put America first." So what you've done, and President Trump, you've prioritized American workers, farmers, manufacturing, ma- manufacturers by expanding access to foreign markets and enforcing our trade laws. You've done it for a little bit over a year. And uh, largely through your efforts and uh that of President Trump, you've secured dozens of commitments from other countries uh to eliminate trade barriers there. And also at the same time have brought back American manufacturing. And now we know made in America means things. So you've done it over a year and let me tell you what you did. You set a record. You set a record for record American exports. Three point four trillion dollars in twenty twenty five. Uh, don't hold your breath, uh, Ambassador Greer, that that's going to be the headline on on, uh, on every newspaper. It should because finally you're putting, uh, America first, and it's exciting to see. I know, uh, that it hasn't been easy just hearing today, uh, you getting grilled. Putting America first, you would think that would be an easy thing to do, but it's not. When we set up these agreements with other countries, though, you also know this. I know President Trump knows this from his first term. Uh, we know that China, there are countries like China that don't play by the rules and will manipulate those agreements to sneak their goods and services here. We've, uh, done a, a great job of, uh, limiting them, but how do we, whether it's through the US MCA or through trade agreements, how do we ensure that China and other back, bad actors don't gain illicit access to our markets and further undermine our manufacturing small businesses? uh, farmers and producers, Ambassador Greer.

Thank you, uh, and and thanks for that that vote of confidence, and I I agree with you. You know, when we're exporting more than we've ever exported in two hundred fifty years of American history, uh, and we see manufacturing coming back, uh, I'm I'm puzzled at how there's reactions or disappointment in that. Uh, with with respect to dealing with uh, essentially trade cheating is what you're talking about, um, there are a few ways to deal with it. On the one hand, we have just enforcement in the US.

It's on your radar though. That's what I wanna know.

A hundred percent.

It's on your radar, China, and for steel and other things that have components. We just wanna make sure it is indeed on your radar screen. Uh, when you think of Florida, maybe you think of beaches, theme parks, uh, but or f- or no, uh, uh, no income tax. But Florida, this is comes to a shock to many people, is an agricultural state. We grow oranges, tomatoes, and we also grow sugar cane. Right now, foreign actors, foreign countries are dumping their sugar in uh in our country, uh and they're subsidized by their own country. Uh it's created a dire consequence for sugar growers in uh in in Florida and really across the United States what are we doing is it on your radar screen, what are we doing to protect sugar and other commodities like that that uh can't compete?

It is on our radar screen. We had a fifty percent tariff on Brazilian sugar that, you know, Democrats' attorneys general insisted on suing to take that down to open, you know, to to destroy protection for American sugar. I've had conversations uh with with many members of Congress uh who who have the same concerns as you uh so I'm working with USDA to figure out how our trade management of sugar imports can be better optimized to benefit our own producers.

Thank you so much. We grow cotton in America. And uh, but we don't have the ability to process it and make it into underwear and shirts and footwear. The uh, the American apparel and footwear industry has great concerns that, because we don't make it in in America, we we grow it, we send it overseas, when it comes back, humongous tariffs. Is that on your radar screen and can we make some uh uh adjustments to for American products that are that are added value elsewhere than come here. What say you, Ambassador Greer?

So, so we have made adjustments, particularly in Central America, uh, that's part of our, uh, cotton textile supply chain, to make sure that that sup- that that supply chain is preferential relative to Asia and other places. We wanna have as much of that production, uh, as close to, to home as we can.

Thank you. Ambassador Greer, thank you for putting America first. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Moran.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, thanks for being here today. Just couple more folks today, but I wanna go over just some of the wins, a lot of the wins that you've had in the last a year or so. Since the election of President Trump and your confirmation as the United States Trade Representative in February twenty twenty five, the US finally has an executive branch advocating for prosperity and growth for US businesses. President Trump put you on a mission to stop unfair trading practices, open new markets, and boost the production of the United States. And you and your team have delivered on this mission, but the work as you've noted today is not done. Nevertheless, pause today and reflect for a moment about the wins you and the President have had over the past year. I want to show you uh the big board behind me. Uh two point two trillion in new investments into the United States committed by foreign governments through your negotiations in cooperation with the work of Secretary Lutnik and the Department of Commerce. You have actively engaged our trading partners and established eighteen deals through trade agreements frame frameworks and investment commitments. The U. S. has secured commitments by nine countries, as you said earlier, not to impose digital services taxes or other discriminatory digital measures, and Canada's digital services tax has been repealed. And we have now seen a thirty-two percent reduction in goods trade deficit with China in twenty twenty five. That's a win, win, win, and win, and a lot more wins that we could talk about, things like the launch of the agreement on the reciprocal trade program that expanded market access for U. S. workers and firms. and the President implementing his policy in in April twenty twenty five, since he actually engaged in that, trade deficit in goods decreased on a year-over-year basis every month through to December twenty twenty five. New investments in the auto industry, as you mentioned, and many, many more. Ambassador Greer, can you tell us more about how these achievements have benefited everyday Americans and why these achievements are particularly significant, to the future growth of our economy?

Uh, well thanks for going through the the hit list on that. Let me just give you a couple of thoughts on this. Under President Biden, wages for manufacturing workers dropped by eight hundred thirty dollars. Under President Trump, in one year, one year, wages for manufacturing workers have gone up by twenty-four hundred dollars. Overtime hours for manufacturing workers have increased. Manufacturing productivity has increased. And last quarter, for the first time, we've seen positive, uh, manufacturing jobs numbers since a huge loss during the Biden years. So the very things we're trying to do, re-shore American manufacturing, it's happening right now. And along the way, we're getting foreign market access to get historic export numbers. We're making sure our digital, our digital tech companies are being treated fairly. And we're attracting new investment, uh, here in the United States to create jobs here that are good for the working class.

Yeah, you're doing it successfully, and even though there's a lot of naysayers here today that wanna, uh, wanna badmouth the, the progress that we've made, it is great progress for the American economy and great progress for the American worker. And it's incredible that we've achieved it just in the last fifteen months. Let's talk about the EU-U. S. trade deal. On March twenty-sixth, the European Parliament voted to advance the U. S. E. U. agreement on reciprocal, fair, and balanced trade, originally agreed to - to last Ju- July. As stated in the agreement, the U. S. and the Eu- European Union share one of the world's largest economic relationships supported by mutual investment stocks, exceeding five trillion dollars. I think we need to leverage this strength, and I welcome efforts to strengthen our partnerships and relationships with key allies like the European Union, particularly where we can reduce barriers to US exports and ensure fair trade practices while fostering our partnerships in other key areas and excluding China, and their undue global influence across the world. How do you see this US-EU agreement of reciprocal fair and balanced trade to improve market access for American producers and what steps will be needed to ensure these commitments are fully implemented?

So so right now the European Parliament bill which they approved uh is going through a process called Trilog. This is something where it goes through um the different bodies of the European Union for final approval. And again, this bill, it reduces all uh tariffs for the US on industrial goods and it provides a number of duty-free uh quotas for US agricultural goods and I'm in conversation uh with my partners in Europe right now on eliminating non-tariff barriers so This is a huge opportunity. Our trade deficit with Europe is already going down. It's really big, but it's already going down, and I think it'll, uh, be even in even better shape after this goes through.

Fantastic, and I appreciate your work on critical metals as well. I've got some questions on that, but my time is short. I wanna say this in conclusion. What I hear from my constituents is that consistency is key for their investments. You know this and you're working on that. You and the president have re-ordered global trade and have put Americans first on the world stage and we're appreciative of your efforts. Now we need to make sure that our industries can plan on these agreements and make them permanent. For the past four years, prior to the Trump administrations, Americans had to rely on trade relations that took advantage of Americans and allowed our trading partners to profit off of our innovation. We must now ensure that the US never regresses back to those relations, and I stand ready to make sure that President Trump's historic trade agreements and your hard work remain lasting and with that, I yield. Thank you.

Mister Swasee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Greer, good to see you. Thanks so much for your public service. We appreciate, uh, you being here today with us. Uh, you were here a year ago on April ninth of twenty twenty five, and, uh, I remember you were sitting here in this exact same spot and I was sitting here, and in the midst of this the President undid the liberation day policies as you were sitting here was actually a kind of an awkward moment. Uh.

I thought it was okay.

Yeah, okay. Anyway, so, you know, tariffs can be used very effectively as you know, especially when combating our strategic adversaries like the Co- Chinese Communist Party. Uh, they can be used to protect specific industries, and I support the idea of doing that. Um, I don't like how we've treated some of our friends in the uh, uh, in the international arena, the same as we've treated our s- our strategic adversaries. Uh, I don't like the fact that Congress has not been involved in the process of this committee. should be more involved in the trade policy of the United States of America, and as evidenced by the rulings of the Supreme Court, they would agree with that statement as well. And I don't like how the fact that uh the trade policy and the conduct of this administration has caused instability and volatility in our markets, which would discourage investment, uh and they've also caused an increase in prices. So let me just say, have you ever heard the expression that businesses crave predictability?

Sure, we've heard about that.

So I've talked to a lot of businesses, I'm sure you have as well, that talk about the fact that they're not sure whether to invest or not because of the instability the volatility the way the things the policy changes in this administration from month to month even year to year. Would you agree that there's been some instability and volatility caused caused by the trade policy in this country?

We've certainly raised uh tariffs because before we had very low tariffs, so we had wild imports from China, we don't wa- we don't,

Yeah, but I ha- would you say that the policy of this administration has caused instability

We have been on a pros-

and volatility in -

We've s- we saw some volatility last year. As you're undoing fifty years of terrible trade policy, and we're fixing it, we're building up tariffs to protect the industries we need.

People have referred to the Trump turbulence text, and uh there's a quote from uh Larry Fink from BlackRock, who I'm sure you know him, who said, " The United States post-World War Two was a global stabilizer. Now we're a global de-stabilizer." None of it is needed to ha- none of this needed to happen. This is not a pandemic, this is not a financial crisis. This is something that we've created. Uncertainty and anxiety about the future of the markets and the economy are dominating each and every client conversation. You've heard that quote from Mister Fink before.

Well, I haven't read that, but I know Mister Fink.

Yeah, and what

All I know is the market's hit fifty thousand, we're growing faster than any G seven partner,

Okay, but y- there's you you agree that there's been some instability

manufacturing's coming fast, we're winning.

and volatility that's been resulting from this policy. Let me ask you this question. Let me ask you this question.

It's not gonna status quo.

Are tariffs increasing prices for the American consumer?

So, so I w- I'm gonna say no. We had a twelve percent inflation under Biden,

Okay, so you say I

and we are at much lower now.

Disagree, so you disagree with the statement from the Tax Foundation that these tariffs are causing costs to go up a thousand dollars per household. You disagree with that?

I do disagree with that, yes I do.

And you disagree with the statement from the Yale Budget Lab,

The Biden Budget Lab?

the Yale

Yes, I do.

the Yale Budget Lab

It's all Biden staffers.

who says that this is

Yeah, I do disagree, because because they assume that it passes down. Right here, article from the Wall Street Journal, who doesn't like me by the way, Trump's tariffs are being picked up by corporate America, not the consumers.

Okay, and y- do you disagree with the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, cuz in New York things are more expensive, that this is costing each household four thousand two hundred dollars?

I can't fix the Mamdani socialist city policies.

Well, that's not the Chamber of Commerce,

Sorry.

but okay,

Okay, all right.

that's very clever. OK, and how about from Moody's, Moody's In- uh Investment Services? They say that these tariffs are raising inflation and the cost of living. Do you disagree with that?

I do disagree. These are the people who want offshoring, Mr. Swanson.

And you disagree with the fact that uh Moody's also says this reduces jobs and reduces the strength of our economy.

We have a a we are the strongest economy in the G-seven.

So you disagree with Neil Brady uh Bradley from the US Chamber of Commerce, who says that these tariffs have caused significant cost increases.

So I will say that for some things that is true, because if we're getting subsidized stuff from China, and we're trying to create a market price for intermediate goods, it c- it could raise the cost of the market price.

Well, it's not just China. It's all kinds of different goods. And there's a lot of you know, you talked about, I think you called them the Bi- the the Biden Budget Lab or something like that.

Yeah, it's all Biden staffers that work on it.

But I mean, but the US Chamber of Commerce, the Tax Foundation, these are conservative institutions that are saying that these are costing consumers uh one says a thousand dollars a year another said twenty four hundred dollars a year and on the other side forty two hundred dollars a year so you disagree with all of that

these aren't conservative institutions they're offshore institutions

ok alright thank you for your service ambassador greer appreciate it very much have a great day

thank you um thank you ambassador greer for

I yield back

appearing before us today um i'm just reminded of my very first line in my opening statement um i said since last april's Liberation Day, the sky has not fallen on the economy as the so-called experts and naysayers predicted. In fact, we have record exports, three point four trillion dollars. The reason why we have opened up more markets for our farmers and our manufacturers is by you and the president using the power and leverage of the tariffs to countries who have basically ignored prior administrations. But they don't ignore Donald Trump, they don't ignore you. As I speak to world leaders every day, I wanna say thank you, Ambassador Greer, because you're right. Wages came up more in the last year than the prior four years under Biden combined. You did it in one year. But the Democrats They couldn't do it in four. And so I wanna say thank you. They talk about the cost of goods. I sat here and I heard a lot of stuff earlier. They talk about the cost of goods. You look at what the CPI says that the cost of food increased from the first day that Joe Biden came into office to the last day Joe Biden was in office was twenty-nine percent. Since Donald Trump has been in office, the cost of food has gone up Two percent. Who is the result of the affordability crisis? The Democrats. They went on a ten trillion dollar spending spree that led inflation to the highest level in half a century. So I just wanna say thank you for being here, putting up with all this conversation, um, and dialogue. Even some of it, the facts weren't completely straight, but I appreciate it. Um, please be advised that members have two weeks to submit written questions to be answered later in writing. Those questions and your answers will be part of the formal hearing record. With that, the committee stands adjourned.