Greer Speaks to Senate on Tariffs Day 2

Mr. Smith (04:26):

The committee will come to order. I first want to say congratulations, Ambassador Greer on your confirmation and your immediate work on President Trump's bold trade agenda, I know is keeping you very busy. Thank you for being here with us. The only mistake is you went to the Senate before us, but you won't do that again, I'm sure. The Trump administration's trade policies are leveraging the power of the world's largest market to create fair trade relationships that level the playing field for American farmers, workers and producers. The Trump agenda prioritizes the long-term prosperity of working families and communities ahead of short-term stock market swings. The American people are counting on us to think beyond today's headlines and stay focused on growing the economy and creating good-paying jobs. Prior to President Trump's reciprocal tariff action, an estimated two-thirds of the 600,000 products exported by American companies paid higher tariffs than foreign trading partners paid on similar exports to the US. Thailand charges a 50% tariff on US beef. Japan charges a 700% tariff on US rice. Australia effectively blocks the sale of US beef while we imported $3 billion from them just last year alone. The European Union rejects our biotech crops through a torturous six-year regulatory process. It's only fair that we levy tariffs similar to the ones faced by American-made products.

(06:27)
Since Inauguration Day, we have seen more than $5 trillion in commitments for new investments in the US, including after the announcement of the reciprocal tariffs. Since Liberation Day, nearly 70 different nations have come to the table asking to reset our trading relationship. This approach will generate more market access under better terms for American producers, and if any nation chooses not to cooperate, these tariffs, they will generate significant revenues. Based on President Trump's tariff policies so far, it seems conservative to expect the US to collect hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tariff revenue each year.

(07:17)
President Trump is continuing the successful strategy he used in his first term. Tariffs brought China to the negotiating table for the phase one agreement, which has netted $40 billion in annual tariff revenue paid by importers from China and increased fairness for American producers. Other agreements like USMCA opened markets for American-made products and ensured fairer treatment for our workers and businesses. An America-first trade policy is needed now more than ever. America ran trillion-dollar goods trade deficits all four years under Biden. Previously, America has never run even one, one year. We ran a $32 billion agriculture trade deficit last year. Under President Trump's first administration, we had an average annual agriculture trade surplus of $5 billion. The Biden administration fell to counter China's moves to reorder the global economy around Beijing. Failure to access whether China was adhering to the phase one agreement meant the agreement was never truly enforced.

(08:39)
The Trump administration is reviewing potential violations of the agreement, as well as exploring Section 232 and 301 investigations to further address unfair trade barriers ripe for enforcement actions. President Trump has made good on his promise to tackle China's abuse of our trade laws and ended its access to the de minimis privilege. The administration's actions mirrored committee legislation passed last year to crack down on the instance of China's trade abuse, and President Trump has now set in motion a process to end the de minimis privilege globally to improve trade enforcement. The Biden administration had to be dragged into fighting Canada's denial of market access to our dairy farmers and Mexico's similar treatment of our corn farmers. The Trump administration will enforce trade agreements to benefit farmers and ranchers. Strong enforcement should be complemented with trade relationships that respect American workers and manufacturers.

(09:49)
President Trump's tariffs have set the stage for the United States to negotiate from a position of strength. I fully anticipate more nations to come forward to reset their trading relationship with the United States. I represent an agriculture and manufacturing region under unfair trade policies. We've had factories shut down and layoff people in our district. The Dana Corporation, an auto parts company in Cape Girardeau closed, killed 440 jobs and shipped them to Mexico. A Briggs & Stratton factory, where my mother worked in Rolla, Missouri, closed, killing 450 jobs and shipped them other places. The Brown Shoe Company in Sikeston, Missouri was just one of numerous brown shoe factories in our Congressional district that closed, costing hundreds of jobs. Nordyne closed in Poplar Bluff back in 2013, cutting 500 jobs and moved that production to Mexico. Noranda shut down its aluminum plant, costing 900 jobs in New Madrid, Missouri in 2016, before the aluminum tariffs.

(11:13)
I could go on, as could every member on this dais. Changing course and undoing the damage caused by years, years of unbalanced trade relationships won't happen overnight. President Trump's economic agenda, from tariffs to tax relief to deregulation, is about making it competitive again, to build, manufacture, grow and produce in America. I look forward to working to change our trading relationships to a source of our nation's economic strength and revenue, not a source of decline and dependence. Thank you for coming before the committee and I look forward to hearing your testimony. I'm pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Neal, for his opening statement.

Mr. Neal (11:56):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you Ambassador Geer, for being with us today. There's a new political caucus, as you know, that has been formed in this town. It's called Republicans for Tariffs. This is the first time that we've heard them ever embrace tariffs, and I must point out that Lichtenstein doesn't stand a chance. From the economic soft landing that President Trump was handed, a low unemployment rate, 2.9% average of growth GDP and millions of jobs created during the previous four years, it's only taken him 79 days to inflict this permanent damage. Recession odds are getting higher by the day. We are following the largest tax and tariff hikes in decades. The average family will confront about $3,800 in new costs. Look at one's 401(k), retirement savings, education plans, new home and auto sales, been wiped out. The layoffs continue and the plant closings that the Chairman referenced today are continuing as well.

(12:59)
Trillions of dollars have been lost just in the last week. The National Review and the Wall Street Journal, hardly left-wing publications, have both warned against the tariffs and National Review saying today, "It's time for Congress to assert itself and end this trade war." Last night the president said he's now coming for higher drug prices. Between the cuts they've planned to our programs at lower costs and the rising prices of these tariffs, their giveaways won't make a dent in the higher cost our colleagues have planned apparently for the American people. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said it best, "This is the dumbest trade war in history. It's not only dumb, it's unconstitutional." It started with the Trump administration's unprecedented opposition, an imposition of emergency tariffs on two of our closest allies.

(13:47)
You and I, Mr. Ambassador know something. We negotiated USMCA. It was a good deal. 195 Republicans voted for it. 196 Democrats voted for it. It was a real negotiation, coupled with the fact that it is to be reviewed next year. Instead, we're now imposing tariffs on two of our longtime friends and neighbors. The president has given himself delegated powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA. It's not a blank check for this president or any president to utilize without Congressional assent. On April 2nd, he stretched it even further to self-delegate more emergency powers. Now he's defying economics and attempting to convince people that the trade deficit that we've had for the last 50 years is suddenly an unusual and extraordinary emergency.

(14:39)
I've had the highest regard for USTRs. I've worked with all of them during my time on this committee. I know what they really think, but whether we or you think that this trade deficit is a concern or not, most serious economists say it is. It's clear that it does not meet the definition of an emergency statute. Republicans in Congress are missing in action, afraid to speak up, knowing that they've never embraced tariffs as an economic suggestion. I could never have imagined witnessing this as our Republican colleagues act as though nothing is happening. The Constitution clearly vests trade authority in Congress and the powers that have been delegated to the President and USTR over the years remain paramount. But the constitutional arrangement has always been based on trust and adherence to the law, and we've had a lot of trust with USTR over the years. That trust is now fractured and on the verge of being permanently broken.

(15:40)
I've heard your defense of tariffs and I expect we'll hear more today. We don't object to all tariffs. Targeting tariffs, the threat of tariffs, it frequently can bring about an outcome that is negotiated and desirable, but to raise prices on the American family and to kill our own exports is unacceptable. Starting a trade war with every other country at the same time is bad strategy and driving away allies that have stood with us for decades, none of us on this side of the dais understand it. The courts will often see these trumped-up emergencies for the pretext that they are and eventually will declare many of them to be illegal. Trade policy should return to serving America's interest and be in consistent with the law and indeed our Constitution. The people cannot afford more amateur hour undertakings. Trade policy needs to move back into the hands of Congress for real negotiation the way it was intended. We can begin by restoring some of that trust that has been so badly damaged in the last week.

(16:42)
Mr. Ambassador, we want to work with you on these trade agreements. Closing the doors to America is not sound policy. It can be fixed, but it's going to take putting the rule of law over ego and greed. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith (16:58):

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

Mr. Greer (17:15):

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal and members of the committee, thank you for taking the time today for this hearing. Chairman Smith, I appreciate your opening statement and the details of some of the effects that prior trade policy has had in your district. And Mr. Neal, I appreciate the work we've done in the past and your willingness to continue working with us. Last Wednesday, President Trump declared a national emergency in response to the large and persistent trade deficit that has built up in recent years. This deficit is driven in part by non-reciprocal tariffs, trading barriers and other economic policies pursued by our foreign trading partners. President Trump imposed tariffs to address this emergency. These measures are aimed squarely at achieving reciprocity and reducing our massive trade deficit. This national emergency declaration and tariff action is the most significant change in US trade policy since we allowed China, unfortunately, to join the World Trade Organization.

(18:08)
The American working class in particular has suffered concentrated losses from the so-called China shock and other adverse effects of past trade policy and the conditions that give rise to our massive trade deficit. The United States has lost 5,000,000 manufacturing jobs and 90,000 factories since 1994. President Biden left us with a $1.2 trillion trade deficit in goods, the largest of any country in the history of the world. The United States' share of world manufacturing output declined from 28% in 2001 to 17% last year. In the fourth quarter of 2024, US manufacturing as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it had been in 20 years. During COVID, we were unable to procure semiconductors to build our cars or materials for pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment. During World War II, we built nearly 9,000 ships. Last year, the United States built only three ocean-going vessels. Our agricultural trade balance, which historically resulted in trade surpluses for our farmers, was in deficit the last two years of the Biden administration and likely will take some time to recover.

(19:18)
These are all serious indicators of an economic and national security emergency. One important driver of these negative trends has been unfair, unbalanced and non-reciprocal trade. This includes the effect of higher tariffs imposed by other countries on the United States. The effect of non-tariff measures that promote other countries' exports and obstruct US exports and other foreign economic policies favoring overproduction and degrading America's manufacturing capacity. This lack of reciprocity is an important driver of our global trade deficit and with particular countries. For example, the European Union can sell us all the shellfish they want, but the EU bans shellfish from 48 states. The result is a huge trade deficit in shellfish with the EU. We charge only a 2.5% tariff on ethanol, but Brazil charges us an 18% tariff. The result is we have a huge trade deficit in ethanol with Brazil. Our average tariff on agricultural goods is 5%, but India's average tariff is 39%. You get the picture.

(20:15)
Our trade deficit driven by these non-reciprocal conditions is a manifestation of the loss of the nation's ability to make, to grow and to build, and it's dangerous and the president recognizes the urgency of the moment. On the very first day of the second term, President Trump issued a comprehensive memorandum setting out his trade policy direction. And over the past 10 weeks, he has executed on nearly all of these priorities. He has tightened tariffs on steel and aluminum, imposed new measures on auto and auto parts not made in the United States by American workers. On April 2nd, he declared his national emergency and imposed the reciprocal tariffs.

(20:52)
The president's strategy is already bearing fruit. Over the past few weeks, a planned layoff for an auto production shift in Tennessee has been suspended and that shift continues to operate. Another automaker is hiring additional employees and expanding overtime to increase auto production in the United States. Companies have announced $4 trillion in new investment in the United States. Nearly 50 countries have approached me to discuss the president's new trade policy and explore how to achieve reciprocity. Several of these countries such as Argentina, Vietnam and Israel have suggested they will reduce their tariffs and non-tariff barriers. These obviously are welcome moves. Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over 30 years in the making and it will not be resolved overnight, but all of this is certainly in the right direction. We must move away from an economy based solely on the financial sector and government spending, and we must become an economy based on producing real goods and services by American workers in our communities here.

(21:47)
This adjustment may be challenging at times. This is a moment of drastic and overdue change, but I'm confident that the American people will rise to the occasion as they've done before. I trust them. I trust that they can do this. I appreciate this committee's interest in President Trump's trade agenda. Though we may not agree on everything and may have some severe disagreements at times, it's my hope that our shared interest in doing what's right for the country will allow us to collaborate in the coming weeks and months. Thank you again for your time and I look forward to our conversation.

Mr. Smith (22:15):

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

Mr. Buchanan (22:21):

Thank you, Ambassador. Thanks for being here. The USMCA did an incredible job and got a good chance to get to know you there and we miss Bob Lighthizer as well in that process. But let me just say, being on the committee and being on trade for 10 or 14 years, whatever, we always seem like we come up short everywhere, even with our friends. Like Japan, I like Japan, I've done business with Japan, still do some business with my kids with Japan, but you look at the trade deficits, they're monstrous. And you look at the number, you just said $1.2 trillion in terms of trade deficit. What are we going to do to change it? And I look back over 10, 12 years, Congress is dysfunctional as it relates to trade. We've done one trade deal. Maybe you might argue there was some supplements that were added, but we're not in the business, we're not engaged.

(23:15)
And in terms of what's going forward now, there's this discussion about doing some trade deals. What does that mean? What is that process? Because the process I went through on a couple of trade deals is onerous and it takes time and effort, a lot of effort by a lot of people to get one deal done, let alone trying to… Let's say someone said there's 50 deals out there, people have an interest. What does that mean and what's the process for that? So I guess I'm just tired as Americans losing. And like I said, I do business in Japan and other places, but I just hate to see it. We're always coming up short on most of these deals. And I look at our local area in Sarasota and Florida, in that region, and I look at tomatoes and vegetables, were 600% the surge on us.

(24:09)
And we come up and we've talked about that. We worked on that last couple of three, four years and it's there. Everywhere you look, we're short. And now here we are today. And where is this all going, the process? And what's your thoughts about how do we get… To me, idea of trade is at the end of the day, it's somewhat fair, somewhat fair. It doesn't have to be perfect. Some countries maybe you might give them a smaller country, work with them a little bit more, a lot of countries in Africa. It's one thing, try to give them some advantage, but these bigger countries, they're killing us and they've been doing it on a long-term basis. So as the Ambassador moving forward on trade, what's your thoughts?

Mr. Greer (24:56):

Well, Mr. Buchanan, thank you. I think that's the right way to be thinking about this. The president has stated very clearly over the last few days that he is open to negotiate with countries that actually want to pursue reciprocal trade and get their trade deficit down with us or where we have a surplus, give us the market access that we should have, so we can treat them like they treat us and that it's better treatment all around. That's certainly part of this. In the very near term, I can just tell you, yesterday I had a meeting with my counterparts from the EU, from Korea, from Ecuador and Mexico, and that was after talking to the Senate for four hours in the morning. So there are a lot of countries who understand exactly what the problem is that the president has set out and are willing to talk to us and willing to negotiate. And so I think in the near term, there is an opportunity for these countries, if they want to have more reciprocal trade, to bring down their differential tariffs, bring down their non-tariff barriers…

Mr. Buchanan (25:49):

I'm going to run out of time. Let me just ask you, when you talk about these countries, and I heard there's 60, 80 of them, there's a lot of them that seem to have an interest, would want to do something, but what's your idea what that process is? Like I said, it took 10 years to do one trade deal here. And what's your sense of what that process is going to be going forward to make… You get something negotiated, then what?

Mr. Greer (26:15):

Well, so for example, in the very long term, for countries that think they want a comprehensive trade agreement or something broader, that's a longer term conversation that we have with Congress. Some of that might require Congressional action, of course. And we would want to be very tied in with you. In the very near term in terms of the reciprocal tariff, countries are coming in essentially with a paper, right? Or with a letter that they've sent me. Vietnam is good example where they've just said, "Here are areas where we think…"

Mr. Buchanan (26:41):

Let me just say, because we got a few minutes.

Mr. Greer (26:42):

Yes sir,

Mr. Buchanan (26:43):

Agree. Hopefully that works out, but we do need to get back in the trade business in a serious way with a process that we have here in Congress because this might work for some deals but not all deals, but we have to get serious about trade and at the end of the day, it needs to be fair. It might be a little one way or the other, but if we're buying their stuff, they need to be buying our stuff. And that's very clear to me and I just feel so frustrated because I've watched this show for 10 years and we get little done. It's not Democrat or Republicans, it's both parties. We don't take the initiative on these fronts. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. Greer (27:20):

Thank you.

Mr. Smith (27:21):

Thank you. I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Neal.

Mr. Neal (27:23):

Thank you. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, you, your predecessor, Bob Lighthizer and Catherine Tai, the eventual USTR, worked with Congress on USMCA. We had priorities. House Democrats worked with you to come up with what was a pretty good trade agreement. Again, almost universally supported in the House and the Senate. We had our priorities, intentional enforcement loopholes, addressing access to medicines, improving labor and environmental standards and more. We included novel sunset provisions to give all sides a predictable and fair way to reflect, and if needed, course correct in the trading relationship.

(28:09)
Now the president has imposed global tariffs with purported objectives of leverage to negotiate new trade agreements. Are you seeking to negotiate comprehensive trade agreements that address the range of labor, environmental and corruption concerns? Or is it to seek leverage in the future of addressing these trade deficits in a more unbalanced or arbitrary manner? We know that trickle-down economics don't work, but that's what the administration seems to be doing.

(28:41)
We're looking at tax cuts for wealthy people, aggressive deregulation, hollowing out essential government services. And let me with long history remind all, when NAFTA was negotiated by this committee, at that time, the Republican position was you could not amend a trade agreement, no human rights, no labor provisions, no enforcement mechanisms. That's what brought about the demise of NAFTA and our desire mutually to renegotiate for USMCA. So this idea that this all started in January on January 20th is simply not true. These agreements are not going to be worth the paper they're written on. If we can say with a review of USMCA coming up next year, that we're going to impose these tariffs in an arbitrary manner right now, leading to layoffs and plant closures because of them.

(29:34)
My office is being inundated with calls about people and their 401(k) plans. They don't know what to expect. Trillions of dollars of market value being lost even as we meet. I understand the desire to address the issue of trade and balances. It's important for all of us, but some of the suggestions have been clearly exaggerated as we've gone forward, hyperbolic to be sure. We need to go back to what we did, Mr. Ambassador, with USMCA with a real solid negotiation that led to a desirable outcome. With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith (30:11):

Thank you. The Trade Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith (30:14):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador, for availing yourself here today on such important matters, and especially given the broader context of timing. I think I don't have to tell you these are important issues and I am grateful for your service and certain your intent and desire to move our country forward in many ways. I would say there's no such thing as stagnation in trade. We're either gaining ground or we're losing ground, and I think over the last four years, we lost a lot of ground. And during President Trump's first term, though we made astounding progress through the negotiation of USMCA, the China Phase One agreement, US-Japan trade agreement. These efforts unlocked new markets, strengthened supply chains and empowered cooperation with important partners.

(31:04)
Over the last four years, however, the Biden administration's trade agenda veered from slow-walked complacency to non-binding frameworks. Let me be very clear, the world was watching then as it is now, and it was watching as digital trade barriers, which disproportionately impact American companies, were built while USTR actively withdrew from digital trade negotiations at the WTO and in the Indo-Pacific. The world was also watching as a growing number of countries blocked market access for American agriculture with no scientific basis, and as the previous administration, let negotiations with the UK and Kenya simply fade away. This was particularly concerning given Kenya stood to set an example for other AGOA beneficiaries which are capable of negotiating their own bilateral reciprocal agreements. Consumers, producers, manufacturers, service providers and our partners expected more.

(32:02)
I'm encouraged by the growing list of countries seeking trade negotiations with the United States, including the UK, India, Japan and South Korea. I'm encouraged to also have you as USTR leading these discussions. It's clear President Trump has the world's attention and it is up to his negotiators to ensure any agreements reached, tear down the barriers affecting America's farmers, ranchers and workers. While I do not expect perfection in the short term, we must find common sense solutions which level the playing field for our exporters, ensuring they receive fair treatment we have offered foreign partners, often unreciprocated for too long.

(32:41)
Over the last few months, our trade subcommittee has clearly outlined its priorities for trade enforcement and negotiations. I might add in a bipartisan fashion and I hope you will look to the subcommittee's work to inform your agenda moving forward. I expect strong collaboration between USTR and Congress to our trading relationships. During President Trump's first term, he teed up the agreements with United Kingdom and Kenya. I'm eager for these agreements to be brought to fruition. Ambassador Greer, could you elaborate on your engagement with these countries, Kenya and UK? How would you say you were ensuring our partners understand what progress is needed?

Mr. Greer (33:19):

Thank you, Congressman. Over the past month, I've had a number of conversations with my counterpart in the United Kingdom. We've talked about non-tariff barriers in the UK. We've talked about ways to collaborate on technology. We've met frequently in person. We've had phone calls, we've had virtual meetings, and we've discussed how to move the relationship forward on an economic basis. I've certainly expressed my concern that UK has barriers, especially in the ag space that are very important for us. So that's been made clear to them, but those discussions are on a good footing.

(33:52)
With Kenya, I also had my counterpart, a Trade Minister from Kenya in town last week, and we sat down in my office and we had a good talk and he said that he wanted to engage

Mr. Greer (34:00):

It's with the United States. He understands our concerns, but he also understands the need to move forward. It was a very fruitful conversation. I look forward to speaking with him again. He wants to work with us. They want to have some kind of agreement with us.

Mr. Smith (34:13):

Okay, thank you. I want to say that USTR is a very lean, agile, and effective agency. Simultaneous negotiations with 50-plus countries would require significant bandwidth and expertise, as I'm sure you're aware. The Chief IP Negotiator, a role which has never been filled, and the Chief Ag Negotiator are positions that Congress created in statute to ensure relevant issues important to the American people are addressed. When would you anticipate the President will nominate to fill these positions, and in the meantime, how is USTR responding to the influx of requests and prioritizing negotiations?

Mr. Greer (34:47):

So Congressman, we have a couple of my deputies who have already been announced, and they're doing their rounds on The Hill, or about to. We have an Ag negotiator and a second deputy who are pending announcements. We're very close on that, so we're happy about that. In the meantime, the nature of these negotiations, the other countries know what the trade barriers are that we're talking about, and we're moving very quickly. We're meeting every day with several trade ministers from other countries. The crack staff at USTR is working very hard, as well, to put together what would make sense in terms of near-term agreements with respect to the reciprocal trade.

Mr. Smith (35:24):

Thank you. I think it's important to note that oftentimes even if we have a trade agreement with a friendly country, for example, we still need to stay on top of these things, whether it's investor protections in Mexico or beef in Australia with the expectation of a level playing field. So thank you again for being here. I look forward to the discussion.

Mr. Greer (35:41):

Thank you.

Mr. Smith (MO) (35:42):

Mr. Doggett.

Mr. Doggett (35:43):

Thank you, Ambassador. I have a number of yes-no answers, and if you feel you cannot answer them, yes or no, just say you cannot and I'll move on to the next question. The first of these, yes or no, the Trump tariffs will soon be levied on pharmaceuticals from abroad.

Mr. Greer (36:00):

I'd like to discuss that in more detail with you, sir.

Mr. Doggett (36:03):

Is that true or not?

Mr. Greer (36:05):

Well, the President, he wants to get manufacturing production back here.

Mr. Doggett (36:10):

I understand.

Mr. Greer (36:10):

And so he's going to conduct an investigation to see what's appropriate in terms of tariffs.

Mr. Doggett (36:13):

So he hasn't decided to impose them, as he said he would last night at the Republican fundraiser.

Mr. Greer (36:18):

He said that he will impose them.

Mr. Doggett (36:19):

Thank you. I think the answer is yes.

Mr. Greer (36:20):

Now what the extent of that is subject to an investigation.

Mr. Doggett (36:22):

Reclaiming my time. A simple question, Ambassador, yes or no, do you agree with the president's senior Trump trade advisor, Peter Navarro, that higher tariffs are tax cuts?

Mr. Greer (36:36):

Sir, I don't get involved in the tax discussions, but we know tariffs have a revenue effect, for sure.

Mr. Doggett (36:40):

You think tariffs are tax cuts?

Mr. Greer (36:44):

I think that tariffs are an imposition on foreign goods that can protect American workers and American products.

Mr. Doggett (36:50):

Again, yes or no, do you agree with senior trade advisor Peter Navarro, that as Americans watch their savings erode and the stock market losses approaching $7 trillion that what Americans need is patience?

Mr. Greer (37:04):

I think we all need to work through this period as we try to re-shore and get over the $1.2 trillion deficit that Biden left us with.

Mr. Doggett (37:10):

Do you agree with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, that we're not going to reverse course no matter how much the market's implode, and that these tariffs will be permanent?

Mr. Greer (37:21):

Well, the President has directed that we're negotiating with willing partners, and that's where I'm keying my guidance from.

Mr. Doggett (37:26):

You just referenced the United Kingdom, and you have claimed that these trade deficits require these tariffs. Is it correct that large Trump tariffs were imposed on imports from close allies like the United Kingdom and Australia, even though we have a sizable trade surplus with each of those allies?

Mr. Greer (37:48):

There's a global deficit, and those surpluses should probably be larger because of the barriers they have.

Mr. Doggett (37:53):

Again, sir, can you simply answer yes or no? Did we impose tariffs on allies with whom we have a trade surplus, not a trade deficit?

Mr. Greer (38:01):

We imposed tariffs on every country because it's a global problem.

Mr. Doggett (38:03):

So the answer is yes, even though you don't want to say it, apparently. Let me ask you also about experiences during the first Trump Administration, because at that time there was a discussion about the impact of the retaliatory tariffs from China on farmers, and as a result of that retaliation, there was a significant amount of farm welfare payments that were paid. We know this time that the tariffs and the retaliation are much broader like the Chinese substituting Brazilian soybeans for American soybeans. Will American taxpayers be asked once again to finance welfare payments to farmers that lose foreign markets? Yes or no?

Mr. Greer (38:48):

It's not clear yet whether that will be necessary.

Mr. Doggett (38:50):

Might have to and might not. But similarly, last time there were concerns about the selective nature and the exceptions that were made to these tariffs, and it seems that those who hired Republican contributors, lobby firms, did much better on exceptions. The whole exception process was criticized by the Government Accountability Office. Can I be assured that if one of my businesses hires a Republican lobbyist and contributor who can get a table down at Mar-a-Lago, that they will not get an exception to these tariffs or an exclusion?

Mr. Greer (39:25):

There are no exceptions or exclusions to this program.

Mr. Doggett (39:27):

No exceptions.

Mr. Greer (39:27):

Per the President.

Mr. Doggett (39:28):

All right. It's not one of my regular allies, but the National Taxpayers Union sent me a question yesterday and I'll pose it to you as they did to me. They note that the United States has run trade deficits for 48 straight years, during which time the US economy has grown by 255% in real terms, that these decades of trade deficits have corresponded with increases in American wealth and household incomes that far exceed the progress in Canada, China and the European Union. Do you think that this growth in American wealth as a result associated with deficits is something that constitutes a national emergency?

Mr. Greer (40:10):

The giant and massive persistent trade deficit that Biden left us with is an emergency. It's not like the small deficits from the '60s when we had autoworkers here making production. We've off-shored all this stuff, Mr. Doggett, and we are really in an emergency situation, and we're not passing the buck.

Mr. Doggett (40:26):

Reclaiming my time. We seem to have done much better than in the Gilded Age, which the president prefers. I would just say that on the eve of his inauguration, the president promised to bring prices drastically down, and there's nothing that you've said in your answers or non-answers to me today that will give Americans any assurance to believe anything other than that their prices will continue to soar and their savings will continue to shrink. The President's lies continue to cost of the American people dearly. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (MO) (40:56):

Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Kelly (40:58):

Thank you, Chairman. Ambassador, thanks for being here. There's a quote in the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! from Admiral Yamamoto and he says, "'What I fear is that we have awakened a sleeping giant." Thank God, we've looked around at what's happening in the world. Twice America has gone to World War to save the world. We did it in World War I, we did it in World War II. And after World War II, the people that we saved and some of the people that we fought against were absolutely devastated. They had no way to build themselves back up again. So what did America do? We opened our markets because we have always been the most generous people in the world, and we're always the first responder. No matter what happens anywhere in the world, who's there first? It's always the Yanks.

(41:48)
We have ceded so much market share. We have rebuilt for most of the world an economy that they never could have achieved on their own. Now we're facing a situation with all of those who we've helped don't like us playing in their market. They love coming to America, but they don't want America coming to them. They make it very hard for us to do trade with them, whether it's through tariffs or barriers which our manufacturers can't meet. We sit here today trying to make this a political event instead of a country saving event.

(42:33)
I come from a little town called Butler, Pennsylvania. Butler at one time was a home of a steel mill, still is. We built railroad cars. Pullman was there. We built the first Jeep. We were known as that town, blue collar town. People get up in the morning, work hard, and what they look for is that chance to get some overtime. Last summer, we became known as the town with the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. We're resilient. We always bounce back. We always will bounce back.

(43:14)
I got to tell you, I have some statements from the people that actually work every day, get up and go to work, and they're looking at a market that they're constantly losing market share in. And they wonder, they wonder who is going to stand up and do something? Who's finally going to talk about the real problems in America and quit talking about the stock market? Stop talking about all these other things, because I've watched it go up, I've watched it go down. I've watched it go sideways. I watched it where some people say, "I don't like to play in that because I don't understand how it works.

(43:50)
Here's the one thing I do know, and you know it, too. It's all about work. It's all about market share. Jamie Sychak from UAW 3303, we were in a dire situation, not because of foreign competition. That hurt us a lot. We went from a steel plant that were 7,000 people, down to there's about 1300. We produce something called grain-oriented electric steel, the only producer of that product in America, and we were in danger of losing it because we had an Administration that had had a blind eye and a deaf ear to what they were giving up. Also, Jim Woodings, who operates a factory down in Mars, Pennsylvania, shares his views with me about how much market share they've lost.

(44:33)
So I'm amazed when we try to turn this into a political battle and not a USA saving grace battle where we finally wake up, and just as Admiral Yamamoto feared in World War II, fear all we have done is to awake a sleeping giant. We have given away so much of our market and been denied access to other markets. We are the first responder every time something goes wrong in the world. I would just like to see the world treat us with the same respect as we have treated them. Level the playing field. That's all the President's asking for, level the playing field. Don't make it impossible for us to play. Don't tell us, "Yes, you can come here as long as you meet these standards," knowing that the standards they've set, we can't meet, yet we still allow them to come in.

(45:28)
I sell Chevrolets, I sell Hyundais, I sell Kias, I sell Toyotas and I sell Mitsubishis. People say, "Why is it that you have to do that?" I said, "To make payroll." Most of these companies have factories in the United States and they have come here to help build, not to tear down with American workers. I really applaud what you're doing. I applaud the President of the United States for having the backbone to stand up and fulfill a pledge that others have made before him. They've stood on the floor of the Congress and talked about this and railed about what's happening to our markets and done not a damn thing about it. He stands up into a stiff wind and says, "It's going to hurt for a while until we get back to where we need to be."

(46:10)
It always should be America first, and anybody that doesn't think that way, please tell me what the hell country you think you're going to take your wife and your kids to and your grandkids to. There is no other place in the world like America, and we have been so generous and so welcoming, and as I said earlier, we saved the world twice. Now it's time for us to say to the world, "If you want us to be the first responder, you can't keep stealing our market and not allowing us to play in yours."

(46:34)
Ambassador, you've got a hell of a task in front of you. The biggest task you have is this has become a political agenda and not a saving the United States of America. America First. Please, for everybody, I am red, white, and blue. I could care less whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, just wake up and understand that we cannot stand to lose any more market share, and we better be tough on this one or we turn our backs on the future. I've got 10 grandchildren that are relying on me to stand up, and hopefully, other members of this committee will do the same thing. This is not about tearing Trump down. This is about building America up. Thank you.

Mr. Smith (MO) (47:07):

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson (47:09):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here. I believe in our great country. I love our country. I put a uniform on and served in combat for our great country. I'm not here to talk about politics. I'm here to talk about policy, trade policy today. Both the Chairman and the ranking member talked about the USMCA. I was honored and privileged to be on that negotiating team when we negotiated that bill. It was signed into law by President Trump in 2019. At the time, the President said, "It's the best trade deal ever." I'd like to submit this article into the record explaining what he said.

Mr. Smith (MO) (47:49):

Without objection.

Mr. Thompson (47:50):

Now the president is shredding that deal, creating chaos in the world economy. The numbers speak for themselves. $3,800 higher prices for American consumers, 900 laid off US auto workers, trillions in lost retirement savings, tens of billions in lost agricultural sales for farmers. The Trump Administration says that the tariff taxes will raise $6 trillion over 10 years, which would be the biggest tax increase in our history. The message coming out of the Administration isn't at all coherent. I'm having trouble, my constituents are having trouble understanding this.

(48:41)
He puts a tariff on some 180 other countries, no tariff on Russia, or Belarus, or North Korea. He's putting tariffs on UK, Ukraine, France, an island that only has penguins on it, but not a country that is clearly working against us and we have a trade deficit with. It's confusing in every instance. He says that tariffs are here to stay, to support domestic manufacturing and to raise revenue to pay for tax giveaways to people who really don't need that tax giveaway help. At the same time, he's saying that tariffs are part of a negotiation to secure better trade conditions, and that this will be over soon. I'd like to know which it is because it's not coherent at all, and I'd like to submit for the record documentation of his confusing priorities.

(49:50)
Mr. Ambassador, I'm at a loss to what I tell my constituents. As Mr. Neal said about his constituents calling, my phone's ringing off the hook. I'm getting emails every day. I see people in the street, they're asking. They want to know, a $6 trillion tax on the US economy? What do you tell people when they ask that question? $3,800 higher prices for the average American family, what do I tell my constituents when they ask that question?

(50:24)
I have an Ag district. My major agricultural producer just lost all access to the number one foreign market to which they export their product. Not only has Canada closed the market, Canada has taken every US product that my constituents send there off the shelves and off their web pages. What do I tell them when they say, "I've been working decades to build that market share and it's all gone that quick"? What do you tell them? What do I tell my constituents who say, "I have a container that it's already paid for a product's coming in, and I will not be able to afford the tariff when that container lands"? What do I tell my constituents who say, "We've lost trillions of dollars in our 401Ks. How do I make that up?" What do I tell my constituents when they say, "My kids are getting ready to go to college and my 529 is in the dumps. How am I going to pay for my kids' education?"

(51:34)
Wait? Things are going to get better? Their kids are going to school now. They can't wait for stuff to get better. And pharmaceuticals, we had a hearing on the subcommittee yesterday on pharmaceuticals. This tariff war is pricing pharmaceutical consumers out of the market. A 25% tariff on pharmaceuticals. How are my constituents going to be able to afford their medications? This doesn't make any sense. This is an unprovoked tariff war that's costing us a lot of money with no confusing answer as to what we're doing, where we're going, or when we're going to get there. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (MO) (52:21):

Mr. Schweikert.

Mr. Schweikert (52:22):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, just so I can clear my head, what's our trade balance with North Korea?

Mr. Greer (52:33):

I don't think we have any trade. There's an embargo. A lot of these countries have embargoes already.

Mr. Schweikert (52:38):

So the rhetorical thing of you didn't tariff these countries is that we don't trade with them. But there's the problem is sometimes our rhetoric hat doesn't have any basis in fact, Mr. Ambassador, the folks sitting behind you, is this your team?

Mr. Greer (52:53):

This is. It's our congressional staff who's been up meeting with all your offices.

Mr. Schweikert (52:55):

Okay, so that's congressional staff. Where I do have a concern, let's say both the left and the right, we agree we want to move as much robustness back to the United States, whether it be a manufacturing renaissance, whether it be in the service industry, those things. Okay, when you're doing your formulas, when you're advising the White House, others, do you spend some time on infrastructure issues?

(53:25)
One of my personal fixations is pharmaceutical manufacturing, just looking at the steps and these things. We actually had testimony in this room two years ago, and part of what the discussion was, okay, we'd like to make precursor inputs into small molecule drugs, except it produces some really nasty toxic byproducts and the United States doesn't have mitigation. We don't have ultra-high temperature incineration, those things. So you want to build a policy to re-domicile pharmaceutical manufacturing in the United States. Do you with your staff say, "Oh, but guys, we don't have the infrastructure mechanics to deal with the byproducts, the EPA permitting process to actually get the permits. Maybe we should approach Congress and say, 'Hey, guys, I need you to help us get these things so we can actually, whether it be through tariffs or other incentives, move them.'" Do you spend time analyzing the infrastructure realities we have to actually be able to produce these products?

Mr. Greer (54:39):

Yes, Congressman, absolutely. When we talk about trade policy, which is in the news today because of the President's recent action, we're also talking about favorable tax policy, which is important for pharmaceutical production. We talk about permitting and environmental policy. All of these things go together. That's why President Trump had such a successful first term in terms of the economy, because all of it moved together and we talk about that.

Mr. Schweikert (55:01):

So what's happened in the last week? Would I find that somewhere? Look, in many ways I'm finding myself, I support the ultimate goal. I'm just wondering if the sequencing has been done with the details that are necessary to make it successful. Then I've been waiting for the team to provide people like me the input saying, "David, I need you to get off your backside, and we need this on permitting reform or we need this on certain regulatory issues." I haven't seen that input yet. Do you see where I'm going? If this is the ultimate goal, how do we get there? Is it straight through a tariff regime, or do we have to have our series of sequencing before this actually happens?

Mr. Greer (55:51):

I think we certainly would welcome Congress supporting the re-shoring of manufacturing. I think, unfortunately, during the last administration, we saw a lot of studies by the Biden Administration about how to re-shore pharmaceuticals, which is valuable, but we could do studies for years and years and never re-shore this.

Mr. Schweikert (56:08):

So you have the studies, so you know what we need to do.

Mr. Greer (56:12):

And the President can do what he can do. He doesn't have the power of the purse, but he can create incentives to drive people back to manufacture here.

Mr. Schweikert (56:17):

But this is beyond sense. Even the infrastructure mitigation, it's not enough to say the company wants to get it back here in our country. They can't get the permit.

Mr. Greer (56:30):

That's why we're working closely with other economic cabinet members. We're talking about the importance of this. I'll tell you, Administrator Zeldin and others, they're out there. They're trying to expedite permits. They're trying to make sure that regulations are appropriate to allow the kind of re-shoring we need to solve this.

Mr. Schweikert (56:45):

So Ambassador, what do you need from us? What can we do? The ultimate punchline here is what do you need from those members of Congress who actually support the ultimate goal? Little concerned about the path, but ultimate goal, what do you need from us? Please bring that to us so we can actually do our work.

Mr. Greer (57:06):

I have plenty of ideas. I'm happy to talk to the White House Office of Legislative Affairs about that. I think there's a lot Congress could do if they would like to.

Mr. Schweikert (57:13):

We look forward to those documents. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you. Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Smith (MO) (57:17):

Mr. Larson.

Mr. Larson (57:20):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Greer, welcome to the committee. Thank you for all your service. I just have a direct question because I'm a little puzzled. Being a great James Bond fan, I was kind of wondering what this whole deal is To Russia With Love, and why, as has been pointed out, that on April the second, the President excluded Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea from the new global tariff. The Treasury sector said Russia wasn't on the list because they already imposed sanctions to prevent most US-Russia trade, making higher tariffs unnecessary. The question's two-fold. Is that the case with Russia, Belarus, Cuba and North Korea? While trade in goods has decreased, trade with Russia is still significant. Last time I checked it's like 3.5 billion, well above the volumes of trade for many smaller countries that my colleagues have already been through that are impacted by this. So first, was this an oversight or is the President trying to reinvigorate trade with Russia?

Mr. Greer (58:58):

There's no effort to reinvigorate trade with Russia. Congress did the right thing a couple of years ago and revoked permanent normal trade relations with Russia, so put in the bad category. And so Belarus, Russia, North Korea, they already have their own high tariffs already in a category that Congress has established.

Mr. Larson (59:12):

So it doesn't matter, they're not part of this.

Mr. Greer (59:14):

It does matter. They already have these high tariffs. They don't have permanent normal trade relations. We have normal trade relations with these others. I think if there's trade with Russia-

Mr. Larson (59:22):

Why are the penalties that much more? Why are the tariffs that much more higher on other country and allies than they are on Russia? Because we're already doing enough with Russia?

Mr. Greer (59:32):

No, it's because in the sanctions law, there's always an exclusion for agricultural products, and I think that's the only type of trade we really have with Russia. But all of those folks, they're sanctioned, they're subject to embargoes of one type or another. Congress revoked permanent normal trade relations, and that's certainly the right answer for those folks. We should not have normal trade relations with those countries.

Mr. Larson (59:48):

Well, let me ask you this then. Would you commit here that if we see trade increasing from last year, that USTR will take action to increase tariffs on Russia?

Mr. Greer (01:00:00):

Oh, I'm happy to monitor that and advise the President accordingly. I agree with you on that.

Mr. Larson (01:00:02):

I'm sorry, what?

Mr. Greer (01:00:03):

I'm happy to monitor that and advise the President accordingly. I agree.

Mr. Larson (01:00:06):

What does that mean?

Mr. Greer (01:00:06):

I agree with you.

Mr. Larson (01:00:07):

You're going to monitor that.

Mr. Greer (01:00:08):

Well, you asked if we would see if it would change, if we would see if the trade level would change. I'm agreeing with you. I'm happy to see if the trade level with Russia changes

Mr. Larson (01:00:16):

And if it does increase, you will add additional tariffs.

Mr. Greer (01:00:21):

Well, it's the President's choice, but I'll advise him and I'll say, "This is affecting the trade deficit. We should consider this for sure."

Mr. Larson (01:00:26):

So does that mean you would advise him to raise the tariffs with Russia?

Mr. Greer (01:00:31):

Well, I don't typically give out my advice to the President out in public, but I agree with you.

Mr. Larson (01:00:36):

Well, I'm sure the American people would love to know, as would members of Congress. I mean, you got to admit just if you casually follow the news, you're not a member of this committee. The relationship with Russia is kind of bizarre in terms of what it is between President Trump and President Putin and why this relationship exists. So you could imagine, I don't know, have you ever been to Augie and Ray's?

Mr. Greer (01:01:08):

No, I haven't.

Mr. Larson (01:01:09):

You should. It's a great spot in East Hartford. It's right next to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, et cetera. They're deeply concerned about this. They always say, "Hey, what's going on with Russia and what's going on with the President and Putin?" So I'm going to be able to tell them, "Don't worry, I spoke with Ambassador Greer, and currently Russia is apparently paying enough. Their sanctions already are sufficient, but if we see greater activity and greater trade amounts, we're going to make sure that tariffs are levied on them." Is that a fair thing to say?

Mr. Greer (01:01:51):

Well, on the last part, I can't make the President's decision for him, right? I mean, Russia-

Mr. Larson (01:01:56):

But you would recommend that you would increase tariffs on them.

Mr. Greer (01:01:59):

Well, I'm not going to disclose my recommendations to the President.

Mr. Larson (01:02:01):

So we're not going to recommend, we're not going to say… See at Augie and Ray's, they would say, "Hey, come on, you're BS-ing us now. We know what's going on here." But with that, thank you, Ambassador, and appreciate your time. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (MO) (01:02:17):

Mr. Lahood

Mr. Lahood (01:02:18):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Greer, welcome back. Thank you for your prior service under the last Trump Administration and all the work you put in on USMCA, and happy to see you in this new position. I wanted to talk about agriculture and get your take on how tariffs affect agriculture. My district, that I'm proud to represent, is the 10th largest Ag district in the country in terms of corn and soybean production. The number one industry in the state of Illinois is agriculture. People are surprised by that. Illinois has led the nation the last 12 years in soybean production. We've been second in corn production the last six years. My district, we load up a lot of commodities on barges on the Illinois and the Mississippi River. They go down to New Orleans, they get offloaded, and they go all around the world. About 40% of the corn and soybeans in my district, again, go to places all across the globe, so markets and customers are very, very important.

(01:03:17)
I will just say at the outset that I appreciate what President Trump is doing in terms of addressing long-standing trade deficits and bringing down barriers to trade, and also your commitment for looking for new trade deals and entering into negotiations to address tariff and non-tariffs across the globe. But as I talk to my farmers, there's a lot of anxiety, a lot of stress, a lot of uncertainty, because when we get into a trade war, usually the first pawn in the trade war is agriculture. As we look at the timeline and chronology moving forward, Ambassador Greer, what would you tell my farmers in terms of that uncertainty and anxiety that they're feeling right now?

Mr. Greer (01:04:00):

Well, the first thing to note is that almost all countries have announced that they're not going to retaliate against the United States. Obviously, we have China that has made its own choice. They've always given us a hard time. They've always limited our access over there, and they're doubling down on that path. That's an issue of Chinese agency. Indonesia, India, so many other countries have affirmatively said, "We're not retaliating." Those are actually many of the countries that are coming to us and saying, "We're willing to take down our tariffs." Vietnam unilaterally decided to reduce its tariffs on apples, cherries, certain corn products, ethanol, et cetera. So we're already seeing the kind of movement we would expect, and that's something that I think is an important message to our farmers.

Mr. Lahood (01:04:38):

Thank you for that. I want to switch topics to digital trade. I believe we have a tremendous opportunity in digital trade, and the United States must lead in setting global rules and standards. We can't allow non-market adversaries, like China in particular, to set these standards and further manipulate the digital trade agenda. Unfortunately, under the Biden Administration, we ceded this authority, and we've seen the consequences of discriminatory policies hurting US innovation. I think we can be aggressive working with our like-minded partners and allies to build on the progress made during President Trump's first administration, including the digital agreement with Japan and the robust standards set in the digital chapter of USMCA, which is, in my view, kind of the gold standard for future trade agreements. What can you say today, Ambassador Greer, on how you view the expanding US leadership in digital trade moving forward in this administration?

Mr. Greer (01:05:36):

Well, I think it's a huge comparative advantage that we have. Our digital commerce companies and digital trade companies are the most competitive in the world. They're competing with ones from China, and in that competition, we have to win. If I have other countries discriminating against our champions, that's bad for America, it's bad for our companies and workers, and it's bad for the world. I know we're having a national conversation politically on how to regulate digital tech, et cetera, but in no case can we allow discrimination to undermine our competitive advantage here.

Mr. Lahood (01:06:10):

Thank you, Ambassador Greer. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (MO) (01:06:13):

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

Mr. Davis (01:06:16):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ambassador. It is important that the Executive Administration respect and recognize that Congress has authority over trade agreements, and its purpose is to guide and/or direct the administration on the content of that agreement. Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Trump-Musk Administration in the trade and tariff space over the past month has been anything but comprehensive, well-balanced and measured. In fact, the President's recent approach to advancing his America First trade policy has been confusing, chaotic, inconsistent, and at times even contradictory.

(01:07:06)
Ambassador Greer, I represent companies in the vehicle supply industry that assemble and produce parts for the automotive industry. The vehicle supplier industry employs more than 930,000 people directly, and 4.8 million indirectly, individuals across the country representing the largest sector of manufacturing jobs in the United States. Tariff impact on the automotive industry is massive, and may result in shutting down businesses within the automotive supply chains, which will harm the US economy as a whole. The automotive supply chain is not agile in

Mr. Davis (01:08:00):

… its ability to make changes. However, the motor vehicle parts sector and many others have adjusted supply chains to support more regional production. My question is since it would take years to adjust production and supply chains back to the US, in the meantime the auto sector will be hit with multiple layers of tariffs that will soak up any free cash that could be used for the very investments in the US that the administration is seeking. Is the administration planning any relief for auto parts suppliers and the auto industry? And what other help can the government provide to these suppliers due to the most recent changes in tariffs?

Mr. Greer (01:09:02):

So Congressman, the auto's action is under the Department of Commerce, but I'll also make two brief points. First of all, right now, if the parts comply with USMCA rules of origin, of the agreement we all agreed to five years ago, they continue to come across duty-free, so that's a good development. And second, the United Auto Workers are huge supporters of the action on autos and auto parts and they put out a long statement supporting this long overdue issue. We have Chinese vehicles flooding global markets, the only reason they're not in this market's because President Trump put a tariff on Chinese automobiles in 2018 and the Biden administration kept them and put them in place. It's really critical that we protect our auto industry, and the auto workers understand that. We've accounted for parts that have US content and content from Canada and Mexico and we have to be very deliberate about doing this to save this industry.

Mr. Davis (01:09:50):

Thank you. And let me ask you, have you conducted an analysis on the net impact of tariffs across different sectors of the economy? And what steps has your office taken to mitigate negative employment effects?

Mr. Greer (01:10:10):

So with respect to, we have a lot of historical data about tariffs. For example, the International Trade Commission, they put out a report following the Trump first-term tariffs and they found that there were positive effects on domestic production in terms of employment and better profits for domestic production. We know in the first term when we put tariffs in place, inflation went down, unemployment went down, and real median household income went up. We expect that with good energy policy, good trade policy, good tax policy, good permitting, regulatory processes, this can all rise together to again lead to a increase in real median household income for Americans.

Mr. Davis (01:10:51):

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Mr Smith (01:10:57):

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr. Estes for five minutes.

Mr. Estes (01:11:02):

Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ambassador Greer for joining us today and taking time out of your schedule to meet with us. Ambassador, I just welcome you again to the Ways and Means Committee, which has the sole soul jurisdiction for trade issues in the house. It's great to have you here working with administration that prioritizes free and fair trade, unlike the previous administration which placed pretty much zero emphasis on trade enforcement and on new deals with foreign nations, in effect putting America last. I represent Kansas Fourth District, the air capital of the world, which is a microcosm of the United States. We have large aerospace manufacturing corps in Wichita as well as other manufacturing operations and a widespread agriculture base in the surrounding rural counties. This cross-section of the country every day works to feed, clothe and provide energy for the entire world. Additionally, skilled workers who manufacture airplanes and aerospace components build computer instruments that power our devices.

(01:12:03)
And it's an understatement to say that our district benefits from free and fair trade because when Kansas compete on an even term, we win. The aviation industry has benefited from historical zero-for-zero tariff with foreign nations since the 1980s, nearly every single airplane around the globe contains at least one component made in Kansas. In contrast, our agriculture sector faces stiff barriers with foreign nations. As illustrated in your testimony, ethanol product produced in Kansas faces a steep 18% tariff in Brazil, while the same Brazilian product is only charged a tariff of 2.5%. This type of unfair excessive tariff on US exports is undefensible. Because of this, I support the administration's efforts to reduce the tariff barrier placed on US products by foreign competitors, and I'm pleased to see the number of countries, 70 plus or so, that have mentioned that they want to make a deal. I'd also like to discuss some non-tariff barriers that functionally disadvantage the US in comparison to our trading partners.

(01:13:07)
I've been a vocal opponent of digital services taxes, DSTs. These extraterritorial taxes enacted by in many countries, including France, Canada and UK, are highly targeted on US businesses and innovators. Many of my colleagues agree that DSTs are a revenue grab by countries that restrict technology innovation and envy American companies that are successful in this space. Additionally, in the recently released 2025 national trade estimate report on foreign trade barriers, I was pleased to see the USTR include Germany's extraterritorial assertion of retroactive taxes, known as the Section 49. This law has been dormant for the past 100 years, but disproportionately targets US businesses.

(01:13:53)
These examples aren't from their adversaries, they're from our friends, and these are just a few examples of why it's so important to level the playing field and open markets for American manufacturers and producers, the very effort that you're trying to put in right now. Regarding Germany in Section 49, I believe reaching a resolution on this issue is important, in consulting with Treasury and IRS. It's my understanding that they've engaged with some affected taxpayers and German officials on this issue, but it's yet to be resolved. What's your strategy in terms of working on this issue with Germany and will you work with me and my staff and the committee as we pursue resolution for this issue?

Mr. Greer (01:14:33):

First of all, I always like talking to you, Congressman, because as you know, I lived in Wichita for two and a half years and served at the air base when I was in the Air Force and had a child born there, so we have a nice connection there. I will work with Secretary Besant on this issue with Section 49. I've had some good interactions with my German counterpart in the past couple of weeks, and we're happy to work with you on this to see what the best way forward is.

Mr. Estes (01:14:56):

Yep. Well, thank you. And I know, some of that crosses over as you mentioned with Treasury Secretary and the issues there and there's so many things moving on in your direct sphere of influence with all activities trying to make sure that there's free and fair of trade for American companies and American competitors, and I just applaud your efforts in putting America first in these efforts. Thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. Greer (01:15:19):

Thank you.

Mr Smith (01:15:21):

Gentleman yields. I now recognize Ms. Sanchez for five minutes.

Ms. Sanchez (01:15:24):

Thank you. As the ranking member of this committee's trade subcommittee, I want to say a few words about President Trump's latest scheme, his so-called reciprocal tariffs. Let's start by making one thing perfectly clear, these tariffs are not reciprocal. But don't just take my word for it. According to the Wall Street Journal, the president's tariff scheme is not reciprocal, nor is it based on measuring foreign trade barriers. Before getting into Trump's latest scheme, I just want to note that I recently returned from a NATO Bureau meeting and I witnessed firsthand how President Trump's chaotic trade decisions have damaged our global leadership with our allies. And it's appalling to see how Trump is treating our friends and allies compared to how he's treating our adversaries. It was mentioned that under this tariff scheme of Trump's, Russia gets a free pass while our allies, including those who stood with us after the terrorist attacks of 911, are hit with increasing tariffs. Russia's tariff rate is 35%, and we have hit our trading partners with far higher tariffs. It's sad to say that our NATO allies don't trust us anymore, so his scheme isn't just damaging our economy, it's actually undermining our long-standing security partnerships around the world. And in addition to undermining our relationships with our allies, Trump's scheme imposes high tariffs on numerous countries, including our FTA partners. For instance, under the Korea-US free trade agreement, Korea eliminated tariffs on most goods from the United States. Last year, Korea's effective tax rate for goods imported from the United States was less than 1%, yet Trump has imposed a 25% tariff on South Korea. Trump repeatedly insisted that he wanted to impose the same tariffs on other countries as they impose on us, and I want to read a quote from the president. I'm quoting him on trade, " I have decided for purposes of fairness that I will charge a reciprocal tariff, meaning whatever countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them, no more and no less."

(01:17:42)
But as we now know, that is not true, that is completely false. And because it isn't true, the Trump administration came up with a fake formula to justify this tariff scheme. Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the trade studies called for by the president in January and the so-called reciprocity rationale of his latest trade scheme are completely bogus. It's made up. To understand why Trump is pursuing this crazy scheme, you need to understand his MO. First, he threatens a huge tariff. Second, he tries to use those tariffs as leverage to extort countries, many of them are allies. And third, he declares anything that they promise as a huge victory, even when it's an insubstantial deal meant only to appease Trump and his cronies. And fourth, repeat this corrupt practice over and over again. This is all intended to distract and divert the media's attention.

(01:18:38)
I urge everybody to take a step back from the daily chaos that comes out of the White House to consider the bigger picture here. Trump should not fool around with the economy. American families should not be forced to pay higher prices to fund tax cuts for the rich, which leads me to suspect that these tariffs are not temporary in nature, because they need the revenue to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Trump shouldn't fool around with workers, workers aren't pawns. Instead of this chaos, workers need robust industrial policy paired with workforce development and targeted tariffs to reshore certain American industries, yet the president doesn't have a comprehensive plan to do any of that. Trump shouldn't fool around with our democratic values. Trump's trade agenda is all being done behind closed doors, there's no transparency, backroom deals are corrupt and they're anti-democratic. As members of Congress, we need to reassert our voice in the face of Trump's insane trade policies.

(01:19:39)
Republicans need to stand with Democrats and decisively call out Trump's harmful tariff scheme. As I said in our previous hearing, house Democrats are open to new trade agreements with partners that are committed to advancing workers' rights, protecting the environment, defending human rights, and safeguarding our intellectual property. Unfortunately, the president's corrupt tariff scheme is trampling on our constitution by sidelining Congress's jurisdiction over trade. Let this administration's record in trade policy and elsewhere serve as a grave warning, and there is no denying that this president and his cronies are rapidly working to consolidate power. With that, trade representative Greer, I have a couple of questions for you. In the April 2nd announcement, did the president issue tariffs on the European Union, Japan and South Korea? Yes.

Mr. Greer (01:20:35):

Yes, every country-

Ms. Sanchez (01:20:36):

Okay, I don't need an explanation, I just need a yes or no answer. Did the president issue any new tariffs on Russia, Cuba, North Korea or Belarus?

Mr. Greer (01:20:45):

They already have sanctioned embargoes, so no.

Ms. Sanchez (01:20:46):

No, the question was yes or no. I recently read news reports indicating that you are the new head of the Office of Special Counsel. Is that correct?

Mr. Greer (01:20:55):

I'm the acting head, that's correct.

Ms. Sanchez (01:20:57):

And you currently serve as USTR with the trade wars. Don't you think that your time should be focused exclusively on trade? And isn't it a gross conflict of interest to be the body that oversees your own agency and position?

Mr. Greer (01:21:11):

Oh, I certainly would recuse myself if there was an issue involving me in-

Ms. Sanchez (01:21:14):

Well, I think it's ridiculous that you hold both and I urge you to resign as special counsel. It makes no sense for you to have oversight over yourself, that's not true oversight. And with that, I yield back.

Mr Smith (01:21:26):

Member's time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Smucker for five minutes.

Mr. Smucker (01:21:32):

Thank you. Excuse me, thank you Mr. Chairman, hello Ambassador. I want to thank you for the work that you're doing, for the change that you're working to bring about and I also want to point out the differences that we've seen in the past four years of the Biden administration compared to the four years of the Trump administration, specifically in regards to trade. I think Democrats and Republicans alike were very unhappy with the past administration's approach to trade basically which was to do nothing, to do nothing to try to generate new agreements and to do nothing to try to open markets up for American manufacturers, to do nothing to try to bring jobs back to America. And that's just in such stark contrast to what we saw during the previous Trump administration, he had a bold and effective approach to trade, one that really delivered prosperity and brought our trading partners to the table.

(01:22:35)
So we appreciate the work that the president did during his previous administration, we appreciate the work that he's doing and that you're doing on trade, it's a refreshing change to what we've seen over the past four years, and we trust the president to get this right again. We're seeing already the impact when you have tens, I don't know how many we're up to now, but countries coming to the table that have for a long time had tariffs in place for our goods but we weren't doing the same. And so the idea of reciprocal trade I think is a great one that I can tell you the American people in my district, business owners in my district, very much support and they support the goals of this administration to bring back manufacturing jobs to the country, to bring back that investment in the country, and then to open up markets to our great American businesses.

(01:23:41)
So I will also say this, many of those business owners who love what the president is trying to accomplish are feeling a little consternation, they're concerned about how we're going to achieve what intent is here. They still believe in what the president is doing as I think every, at least Republican member here agrees with that. But I just want to give you an opportunity, if you don't mind, to just expand maybe on some of the things that you've said previously, but with that audience in mind. What would you say to, for instance, a copper manufacturer in my district who you and I have spoken about previously, but this is impacting their business in a big way?

(01:24:40)
And what would you say to other businesses who are in a similar situation? And maybe, if you could just paint a picture of what success will look like here again, in the context of the successes that we've seen with USMCA negotiated the previous administration, all that. Take us out a few months, take us out a few years. What is the end goal here? I think I know what that is, but I'd love to give you a chance just to expand on that. What will success look like? How will that help every American business? Thank you.

Mr. Greer (01:25:17):

Thank you Congressman. I think we'll find that American businesses are much more competitive when they have open markets overseas. People talk about the high cost of doing business in America and manufacturing in America and growing in America, but when we cannot access foreign markets or we face barriers overseas, and not just tariffs but also all the non-tariff barriers that we've outlined in this 400 page book, that increased costs and it makes it difficult to be competitive globally and even domestically. At the same time, we have foreign producers who receive subsidies, they have countries where economic policies depress domestic demand, they make more stuff than they can consume, they send it here. And so I think what we're going to see in the near term, we're going to see a handful of partners who open their markets more to us, and it makes it much easier and much more competitive economically to have manufacturing here, to grow products here, to process them here and export them to the rest of the world.

(01:26:12)
So it's a virtuous cycle that you create when you create a situation where you have open markets, you create broader economic policies whether it's good tax policy, good energy policy, to give you the tailwind you need. We have to reshore manufacturing. This is an important way to do it. We can have tariff protection as we get rid of the trade deficit and reshore manufacturing. And as other countries open their markets, they can potentially have a different arrangement that helps us as we try to have reciprocal trade and get rid of the deficit and get back to being a producing economy. That's where we need to be.

Mr. Smucker (01:26:42):

Well, thank you again for your work. I'm out of time, but appreciate your work, and we're with you. Thanks.

Mr. Greer (01:26:47):

Thank you.

Mr Smith (01:26:49):

I now recognize Ms. Sewell for five minutes.

Ms. Sewell (01:26:51):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome Ambassador. It was a pleasure working with you on USMCA and for what it's worth, I still believe that USMCA is a is gold standard for our trade agreements that we make. It was done so with Congress and the executive, and that should be the standard. Unfortunately for both of us, president Trump has decided that he doesn't want to work with Congress and that he is not bound by our constitution or trade laws. President Trump has unilaterally imposed the largest tax increase on working families in decades by implementing broad tariffs that are crashing the economy and threatening the livelihoods of so many working families in Alabama and all across America.

(01:27:41)
Moreover, he is doing so by abusing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IIMPA, clearly states that the president can only use this authority in response to unusual and extraordinary threats. However, both you and the president have described the trade deficit as persistent. I don't know how you can claim that our trade deficit is persistent and at the same time use an emergency authority which requires it to be unusual. My question to you, I have a series of questions and really I just want a yes or no answer. As our trade representative, do you believe there are any restrictions on President Trump's emergency authority or do you believe that President Trump has unlimited power to tariff any country for any reason? Yes or no?

Mr. Greer (01:28:36):

Congress has put a number of limitations on that authority.

Ms. Sewell (01:28:39):

So is that a no?

Mr. Greer (01:28:42):

It is not unlimited. It's not unlimited.

Ms. Sewell (01:28:45):

Did President Trump ask you or do you believe that using emergency authority for this purpose of trade deficit is legal?

Mr. Greer (01:28:54):

Of course it's legal, yes.

Ms. Sewell (01:28:56):

Do you believe Congress has any role in providing oversight of this administration's implementation of tariffs?

Mr. Greer (01:29:05):

Certainly, that's why I'm here today.

Ms. Sewell (01:29:08):

Many of us on this committee have serious concerns that foreign nations will be pressured into negotiating as a result of this, and those negotiations could also extend to them purchasing the Bitcoin with the President's name and face on it. That would be illegal, right?

Mr. Greer (01:29:28):

I have never looked into Bitcoin purchases by foreign countries.

Ms. Sewell (01:29:32):

Reclaiming my time. Are tariffs regressive or are they progressive tax?

Mr. Greer (01:29:40):

Well, tariffs can protect and that's why the United Auto Workers want them in place and have cheered the tariffs-

Ms. Sewell (01:29:45):

I'm reclaiming my time. Who spends a higher portion of their income on goods, the wealthy or working class?

Mr. Greer (01:29:53):

I think the more wealthy have a higher percentage of consumption overall in the United States-

Ms. Sewell (01:29:58):

Well, according to the Tax Foundation, a conservative entity, how things are distributed are more regressive and put a higher burden on lower income households more than higher income households.

Mr. Greer (01:30:21):

The top 10% of incomes account for about 50% of consumption.

Ms. Sewell (01:30:26):

They do. And so I think what I'm getting at Mr. Ambassador is that my Alabama constituents are very, very worried. I was home this weekend and Ms. Jackie who owns Reflections, a coffee shop in Selma, Alabama right near the Edmund Pettus Bridge, a place that she couldn't have when she was growing up in Selma go into, she now owns. It's a coffee shop, and she's really, really worried that the price of coffee will go up so high that she will not be able to keep her store. And she just, this is year number three, it's a very popular store, but in little Selma, Alabama where the price of coffee is already $5, 4.99, increasing it even more would shut her down. And so my constituents have lots of questions to me and to this president with respect to why we are choosing to go down this path.

(01:31:26)
His tariffs amount to the largest tax increase on those families. It's bad for Alabama farmers who are facing retaliatory tariffs, it's bad for consumers who will see prices skyrocket, it is horrible for those who are retired and depend upon their retirement to live, and seeing the stock market go out of control. So sir, this is really dire for a lot of folks that I represent, dire for a lot of folks that I represent, and we can't wait for things to get better. And so I really urge you and the president to think about the least of these, the most vulnerable in our society and how are they're going to weather the storm. And to my Republican colleagues here on this committee, I hope that you will push back on these escalating sweeping tariffs that have done so much damage to our economy. Thank you, and I yield back.

Mr Smith (01:32:20):

Members time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Hern for five minutes.

Mr. Hern (01:32:24):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Ambassador. I really appreciate you being here to recognize the relationship between the executive branch in Congress as it relates to trade, so thank you. Over the last four years, trade has been neglected at best and it's long past time for real trade agenda and a president who wants to strengthen America, not cede its interest to foreign governments. As a matter of fact, the American people elected President Trump in November under the premise that he would rebalance trade with our allies and others around the world, to bring manufacturing back to the United States, to create high paying jobs in America, make things in America. And as you just alluded to, it's been applauded by many people, including our great auto workers, as they talk about reconstituting those manufacturing jobs where they're needed most. You mentioned in your testimony that Israel is one of the countries looking to negotiate and to my knowledge, they were the first to remove all tariffs for the United States.

(01:33:14)
It is heartening to hear that our allies are coming to the table and taking quick action to remove trade barriers with the United States. Last Congress, I introduced a resolution in support of the free trade agreement we have with Israel as a way to support one of our greatest allies as they face an existential threat from Iran and its terror proxies. I appreciate President Trump's strong support of Israel and I hope that this first step by Israel to move to a zero tariff policy will lead the way to an even stronger trade and economic relationship between our two countries. Trade policy should reflect not only economic interest, but also national security and ideological alignment. Strengthening relationships with allies who share American values is essential to reducing reliance on adversarial nations. Mr. Ambassador, how can we ensure our trade policies prioritize strategic allies like Israel and Taiwan who share American values and are willing to join us in acting common policies to counter our adversaries?

Mr. Greer (01:34:09):

Thank you, Congressman. I'm happy to report that Sunday night I had a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu about this very issue, and the Taiwanese have also reached out, so this is something where we're having close high level talks about how to move forward. I would also say, as we talk to our allies, we're encouraging them and hoping that they will align with us on things like export controls and investment screening, to make sure that as we trade with them, we're trading in a way that increases our economic security and not just our economic growth.

Mr. Hern (01:34:38):

We know calculations are going on and into the reciprocal tariffs include more than just tariffs other countries placed on the United States. And as you're undergoing negotiation with our allies, is the president and your office taking into consideration things like export controls, as you just mentioned, foreign military sales, foreign direct investment as it relates to their relationship with the United States?

Mr. Greer (01:35:02):

So we certainly consider those things and appreciate them. Remember, with foreign direct investment, because they export so much to us, they have all these hard dollars the best place to put them is here, and so that's a natural outgrowth. We are very focused on making sure that we have trading goods that is fair and make sure that we're not getting dumped on or have over capacity overflowing into the US and that we have export market opportunities. But we certainly are encouraged by, and the $4 trillion in new investment that's been announced by foreign companies

Mr. Hern (01:35:32):

Are military sales included in that?

Mr. Greer (01:35:35):

So that's a good question, we've thought about that. When you look at the trade numbers, I think foreign military sales, official ones, don't normally show up in those trade numbers, but I know that's been raised by several of our allies. And of course, we want our technology to be the technology that allies are using.

Mr. Hern (01:35:52):

The last four years under former President Biden, USTR failed to inadequate or adequately address discriminatory extraterritorial taxes and digital trade barriers harming American companies. Last year I raised concerns with Ambassador Tai when USTR failed to include digital trade barriers in the 2024 National Trade Estimate, the NTE report on foreign trade barriers. The internet and digital technologies have revolutionized commerce, enabling businesses of all sizes to access global markets and consumers like never before. However, this potential is being undermined by the rise of digital trade barriers imposed by some of our trading partners. Those barriers come in various forms, from data localization requirements to discriminatory regulations and censorship measures. That not only stifles innovation and economic growth, but also undermines the competitiveness of American business in the digital age. In 2023, the US exports of digitally enabled services accounted for 64% of all US exports, and the US had nearly $300 billion in digital trade surplus. Will you make it a priority to, unlike the last administration, to address this digital trade barrier?

Mr. Greer (01:37:01):

Yes, we're focused on this. We're not political or choosing sectors we like or don't like, and we've recorded in the trade estimate this year different digital trade barriers. Obviously Congress is going to regulate and decide how we're going to manage digital trade competition, those kinds of things, but we just can't have discrimination, and I won't accept that by our foreign trading partners, especially in this area where we're so competitive.

Mr. Hern (01:37:24):

I want to thank you again for coming here and appreciate you answering everyone's question. Again, it shows the understanding of the relationship between the executive branch and Congress as it relates to trade. Thank you, again, appreciate it. I yield back.

Mr Smith (01:37:37):

Mr. Benet.

Ms. Delbene (01:37:39):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Mr. Ambassador for being with us today. Tax-day came early this year, came on April 2nd, since Trump's sweeping tariffs are raising prices for American families by $4,600 this year, according to the latest estimates. It keeps going up. Families are struggling, businesses are panicking. I talked to a business in my district that talked about being tariffed out of business. We have businesses who have a lot of export, who manufacture right here in the US and export, who are losing business. Even Republicans are beginning to break with the president, we've seen several joint bills that would make clear that the president does not have the ability to single-handedly impose sweeping tariffs.

(01:38:28)
The real question we're all wondering is how do we get out of this mess that Trump has created? Chairman Smith recently said he hopes that the Trump tariffs will give USTR leverage to negotiate new trade deals. But Ambassador, how can any country trust the US enough to make a trade deal, given that Trump has thrown out existing trade deals like Australia or South Korea or even USMCA, which he negotiated and Congress enacted? How are people going to trust us when arbitrarily these deals are being thrown out?

Mr. Greer (01:39:07):

Congresswoman, thank you. The United States remains the consumer market of choice for everybody. And I hear some of these Wall Street analysts predicting imminent catastrophe, and that's just, when we look back at Trump one, we put tariffs on China and we reinvigorated NAFTA to be USMCA. We saw real household medium income go up, we saw inflation go down, unemployment go down. And the countries are coming to us every day, we're having several meetings with them every day to do these deals, so they're not showing hesitance, it's quite the opposite.

Ms. Delbene (01:39:40):

But if we have a deal that's being blown up, then you can say you're negotiating a deal, two seconds later you can throw it out. What kind of deal is that? These deals that you're supposedly negotiating, are they going to come to Congress for a vote like USMCA did?

Mr. Greer (01:39:55):

These are deals. So first of all, if we did a comprehensive free trade agreement, of course we would come to Congress, et cetera, and we will certainly keep Congress up to speed on any kind of-

Ms. Delbene (01:40:04):

Any deal that you do, are you going to bring that to Congress for a vote?

Mr. Greer (01:40:08):

We'll do what the law requires, some of its consultation, some requires a vote, so we'll follow the law on that front. But the countries are coming, right? If they were hesitant, they wouldn't be knocking down our door.

Ms. Delbene (01:40:17):

But I don't understand what the countries are coming to do. You put tariffs in place, sweeping tariffs, with no specifics on terms of what the goals are, no plans, and then you say countries are coming to what? To individually negotiate with President Trump and it's his whim what's acceptable or not acceptable?

Mr. Greer (01:40:35):

So for example, I get a letter from the Vietnamese, which I received recently, and it outlined a number of tariff lines where they want to reduce their tariffs and non-tariff barriers that they want to remove, and they want to engage with us on reciprocal trade.

Ms. Delbene (01:40:46):

But what are the objectives of the negotiation? You didn't lay those out the plan. There's no plan that was laid out by the president, I've seen no plan from USTR on what the goal of the tariffs are. We're damaging companies, we've thrown out existing trade deals that we already have. And now you say there's a negotiation with no clear goal what that negotiation is or whether or not Congress is going to have a vote on a potential deal.

Mr. Greer (01:41:15):

So we have a 20-page order laying out the basis for the order and the emergency we're facing, which is the trade deficit that President Biden left us with, the offshoring that it represents, the non-tariff barriers that it represents, and we're looking to eliminate that, and a tariff is a way to do that. And if a country has an alternative method that they think will help us meet those goals, we're happy-

Ms. Delbene (01:41:32):

Can we talk about the emergency powers or the emergency power statute that Trump invoked, IEPA, to impose his tariff? It states, the President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before exercising any powers. That didn't happen.

Mr. Greer (01:41:50):

Our USTR staff came up to Congress and did consult. I've had-

Ms. Delbene (01:41:55):

With who? What members of Congress did you consult with? I

Ms. Delbene (01:42:00):

I'm a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I'm a member of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Greer (01:42:04):

I called both the chairman and the ranking member the day before, the morning of. My staff came up and briefed-

Ms. Delbene (01:42:11):

So if you talked, if you called-

Mr. Greer (01:42:12):

It's my jurisdiction.

Ms. Delbene (01:42:12):

How could you consult with folks when there wasn't even a deal that was proposed? In fact, it wasn't until April 2nd when the tariffs were put in place, no one even knew what exactly was going to happen. There was nothing to consult on. So how did that consultation take place?

Mr. Greer (01:42:29):

I had a phone call with Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal-

Ms. Delbene (01:42:32):

About a non-existent deal.

Mr. Greer (01:42:34):

Well, I told them about the IEEPA action that was coming, and I sent my staff up here to brief the committee staff as well.

Ms. Delbene (01:42:40):

So I argue that we did not have that consultation, here we are, there was no plan in place, there's no plan in place going forward. The American people are hurting, and now in the rule vote that we are going to have just after we are done with this hearing, Republicans are already putting in a provision to make sure that they don't have to vote on the tariffs that are in place. Congress should have a role here. It's terrible that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't willing to have a vote too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (01:43:13):

Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. Miller (01:43:16):

Thank you, Chairman Smith. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you for being here. It's my opinion that part of the reason President Trump has taken such drastic action on trade is due to the fact that there was no trade agenda under the Biden administration. And I didn't hear any sniping from the other side about that. The past administration's failure to engage in meaningful conversations with our trade partners opened the door for countries to run afoul of the World Trade Organization tariff agreements and to impose excessive non-tariff barriers. These countries have had no incentive to negotiate, and they've been massively benefiting from the system as it is. For example, in my state, the hardwood companies have been pummeled by China dumping their hardwood in the American market. China gained at our expense while we were asleep at the wheel. Thankfully, that is not the policy of the United States today. Due to President Trump's swift action, more than 70 countries are knocking down our door ready to negotiate a trade deal.

(01:44:25)
Today, I want to focus on the future of our trade agenda. Looking to the very near future, the administration is required by statute to undertake the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement review process in 2026. I can't understate the importance of the USMCA to my constituents. The growth in the manufacturing sector, spurred on by our cooperation with Canada and Mexico, has helped sustain thousands of jobs in my district. I'm well aware that this agreement is not perfect, and we are fortunate to have the review process in place in order to make the necessary improvements.

(01:45:08)
Ambassador Greer, what commitments can you make to us today in regard to the USMCA review? Specifically, how will you use this opportunity to advance President Trump's goals of promoting domestic manufacturing and how will you engage with Congress to facilitate this process?

Mr. Greer (01:45:27):

Thank you, Congresswoman. And I'll just note that goods coming from Canada and Mexico right now that comply with the rules of the agreement continue to enter duty-free. This is an important agreement. I met with my Mexican counterpart last night, in the works, I have a meeting with my Canadian counterparts, and we expect that we will initiate the public consultation process that's required by the statute at some point at the time required.

(01:45:55)
I think with the USMCA, it's important that Canada and Mexico not be used as an export platform for third countries. That's not what we want. USMCA should be an agreement that promotes manufacturing in America and that we can rely on our partners to the north and south if needed. But it can't be a situation where countries can just come in, China or Vietnam or somebody, build a factory in Mexico, assemble it with parts from there, and send it across and get the benefit of an agreement where they've taken no obligations. So I want to make sure that it truly is an agreement that helps America first.

Mrs. Miller (01:46:32):

Thank you. I've greatly appreciated your leadership in protecting American digital companies abroad. You and I are in agreement about the dangers of South Korea's anti-competitive policies towards American digital companies. I intend to reintroduce legislation that seeks to ensure that American companies are not being harmed by one of our closest allies while Chinese companies are left unscathed. The digital trade sector is rapidly growing and it's important that we do not lose market share to China in this critical field. Several countries are considering legislation that mimics the European Union's Digital Markets Act, which has indisputably caused a digital winter for American tech companies operating in Europe.

(01:47:19)
What are your plans to address these harmful policies and to ensure the prosperity of American digital trade? And do you think that digital trade will play a part in the imminent trade discussions regarding the Liberation Day tariffs?

Mr. Greer (01:47:33):

Thank you. So first of all, I understand that there's obviously a national conversation going on about how digital trade should be regulated, and there are lots of views on that. What I will say is we're not going to outsource that regulation. We're not going to let the European Union, or Korea, or any other jurisdiction set the rules for digital trade. It will be us. And they won't be able to do it in a way that's discriminatory either, that is impermissible, especially when we have, as you noted, the Chinese competition out there. If we're going to have companies that operate in this space and are so competitive in this space, we need to make sure that they're American companies,. That's what we need to make sure. And so this is certainly something that we can talk about in any negotiations that come up.

Mrs. Miller (01:48:15):

Thank you. We have historically forged some of our strongest alliances based on procuring critical minerals, which are difficult or nearly impossible to obtain in the US. Will you commit to exploring trade discussions and partnerships with like-minded partners to protect and build up our critical minerals today?

Mr. Greer (01:48:33):

Yes.

Mrs. Miller (01:48:33):

Thank you. I yield back

Mr. Smith (01:48:35):

Mr. Neal.

Mr. Neal (01:48:36):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to invoke a point of personal privilege. When the ambassador called me, it was more to inform me of what the administration was going to do. It wasn't to consult or to seek my opinion as to what they were going to do.

Mr. Smith (01:48:51):

Mr. Murphy.

Dr. Murphy (01:49:05):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to show a slide to everybody, documenting where we are with the United States and the US trade deficit. I think this really shows why this is an emergency. If you look at where we are with manufacturing goods, that's in the red column here. If you look at what has happened to the manufacturing capacity of the United States, we have plummeted absolutely plummeted down here in 2022. We have such a trade deficit with manufactured goods. This is critical. This is why the president has said this is an emergency. The same thing with fuels and other total goods, we have plummeted in this nation's capacity to actually produce things. So yes, this is an emergency and this is by all means altogether the right thing to do.

(01:49:53)
If we do not reverse this trend, again, going with the absolute calamitous effect of how we are hurtling towards a sovereign debt crisis, this nation does not exist. And yes, there is short-term problems without a doubt, but it's the same thing by taking medicine you don't want to take. If we don't help the body by intervening and doing what is critically important for this nation, nothing else matters. So this is how manufacturing has plummeted and this is why we are in a state of emergency. Thank you.

(01:50:27)
Thanks just for that moment. I want to briefly say something before I begin my remarks. I've gone down many, many, many times to Haiti, we talked about this before, and done a lot of mission work down there. Unfortunately, the HOPE/HELP program is set to expire in September. I hope some work is being done in reauthorizing this program. We're trying to nearshore, onshore, we want to stabilize our Caribbean nations, our Central American nations. And Haiti has fallen into such decay right now it makes Somalia look like Wonderland. We really need to help these nations stabilize in our hemisphere. It helps everybody. So I hope that is just going to be on your radar, H.R. 1625, the HELP Extension Act.

(01:51:11)
Just to shift gears again, I want to talk a little bit about de minimis. The legislation H.R. 7979, the End China's De Minimis Abuse Act, did not make it to the floor. However, we're seeing that packages being abused by this loophole, literally, with China overwhelm the CBP, leading to billions of dollars of lost revenue and jobs. This has allowed Chinese companies to send so many goods into this country without paying tariffs.

(01:51:39)
Can you discuss why the administration is taking on de minimis, why this is so necessary?

Mr. Greer (01:51:45):

Yes. It's essentially for all the reasons you just described, de minimis originated as a way for tourists or others to go overseas, buy souvenirs, come back, bring them in duty free. And that persists, that continues. I think everyone's comfortable with that. But what we saw were foreign companies abusing the system, and taking advantage of it, and building a commercial case for it, their entire business on it. And that ended up undermining a lot of retailers here in the United States. And so it's important to make sure that that tool is used for its original purpose and not for other countries to avoid duty payments or things like that.

Dr. Murphy (01:52:24):

One of the comments were that we shouldn't be doing tariffs to our friends. Friends don't treat friends with horrible tariffs like we're being done by other countries. So I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, so we're able to see what the rest of the world has been doing to the United States. I don't think the American public understands this, and that's just why I think it's just so critical that we shine the spotlight on this.

(01:52:48)
Quickly, just with one of the things that happened in the pandemic, I'm a physician, and we saw that our supply chain for pharmaceuticals, for health-related PPE, et cetera, is critically at risk during these things. If China were to shut off all its exports overnight, medical supply chains would be one of the industry's hardest hit, and we would have American patients literally dying because they could not get medicines or other type of devices. Can you discuss how the Trump administration's trade is helping to secure our health supply chain?

Mr. Greer (01:53:19):

Yes. So first of all, we have to reshore pharmaceutical production to avoid the very situation you talked about. And we have to do it now. We can't wait for the next crisis. We can't wait for the next conflict. We have to do it now. I understand the Commerce Department will be undertaking an investigation of the pharmaceutical supply chain to assess what tools we can use. The president's talked about tariffs that might apply to certain things to incentivize reshoring, but I assume that investigation will also have other ideas as well.

Dr. Murphy (01:53:44):

We have to make sure that in this tariff incident we're not hurting American companies, and hurting them over helping out foreign countries. And going back to Kamala's famous phrase of getting to the root causes of immigration, they did absolutely nothing to bring industry nearshore, trying to prop up Caribbean nations so they won't have everybody trying to run over a border. Look, I've talked to you about Puerto Rico. I was in Puerto Rico this last weekend. There's so much of an opportunity to go there and onshore in an American territory, to bring back American pharmaceutical industries, so many other industries that help us with our national security. And at the bottom line, this is what we're talking about. We're talking about national security.

(01:54:27)
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (01:54:30):

Ms. Chu.

Ms. Chu (01:54:31):

Ambassador Greer, my constituents are sick with worry about the high cost that the Trump tariffs will bring them. They are barely able to afford their everyday living expenses, but now they're hearing that the average family will have to pay $4,600 a year more because of the Trump tariffs. They are hearing this will be the largest tax increase for the American people in our nation's peacetime history. They are hearing Goldman Sachs say that we face a recession. The increases will be for food items that the US does not produce domestically, like cacao beans, coffee, beans, tea, and spices, and certain nuts. But non-food items like clothing, consumer electronics, shoes, cell phones, furniture, and household appliances will be especially hard hit as more than 50% of our consumption comes from countries facing tariff increases of 30% or more.

(01:55:32)
I must point out that there are some items on the list, like bananas and cacao beans, which the US can never grow enough of to meet our own demand because of our mostly non-tropical climate. In fact, the US produces a tiny number of bananas in Hawaii and Florida, but depends enormously on importing bananas from Guatemala, Ecuador, and Costa Rica, all of which received tariffs. And in fact, the US is the world's largest importer of bananas. This shoot-first-then-aim approach is making Americans' lives much worse, with no actual plan, and doesn't make any sense.

(01:56:15)
I see this in three ways. First, the president said that these tariffs would bring manufacturing business back to America, but thousands of Americans were immediately laid off, and manufacturers are telling you that this will crush them. And why would the president impose this tariff tax on tropical countries when America can by far not produce their own bananas, coffee, and chocolate? Is the president aware that these crops only grow in tropical climates?

(01:56:49)
Second, in imposing these tariffs, the president claims that the US is being ripped off by other countries that are profiting off of us, yet these tariffs are being imposed on countries with whom the US has trade surpluses, including the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, Panama, and so on. Using the formula that USTR released to the public to justify this chaos, no country with whom the US has a trade surplus should be subject to additional tariffs. How can you and the president justify forcing the American people to pay more for goods from these countries that already import more of our goods than we do theirs?

(01:57:32)
Third, then if there's an actual formula, why would the Trump administration decide to reserve its most severe punishment not for Russia, which was entirely spared, but for some of the poorest, least developed countries in the world? For instance, Madagascar, which has a poverty rate of over 75%, and where the average worker lives on less than $2.15 per day, the president placed a 47% tariff. So Madagascar, 47% tariff, Russia, zero.

(01:58:07)
My conclusion is that there's only one explanation for this. Corruption. The Trump administration is now bragging that dozens of countries are approaching the White House ready to offer concessions and negotiate a reduction in Trump tariffs. This presents a completely unprecedented opportunity for corruption. If his tariffs are allowed by Congress and the courts to stand, then the president could unilaterally decide to remove or reduce tariffs on certain countries. With no transparency, a country could pay the president or his family money through memberships at Mar-a-Lago or payments through their various cryptocurrencies in exchange for a reduction in tariffs. His cronies could pay him directly to remove tariffs from certain imports.

(01:58:56)
So Ambassador Greer, I would like to ask you two yes-or-no questions. My first question, you're putting tariffs on crops that we for the most part don't grow, like bananas, cocoa beans, coffee, and vanilla, is the president aware that these crops only grow in tropical climates?

Mr. Greer (01:59:15):

Yes, he's aware.

Ms. Chu (01:59:15):

My second question. Yeah, you answered yes. Can you promise that there won't be a pay-for-play system where companies and donors make the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to get exemptions?

Mr. Greer (01:59:24):

You have my promise.

Ms. Chu (01:59:26):

Well, my constituents don't have that access, nor do most of the American people. But because of these Trump tariffs, it is they who will have to pay the exorbitant costs of these actions, and that's not right.

Mr. Smith (01:59:42):

Mr. Kustoff.

Mr. Kustoff (01:59:45):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing. And thank you, Ambassador Greer, for appearing today. Ambassador Greer, I represent part of Memphis, Tennessee, and most of rural West Tennessee. And in Memphis, Tennessee, last year, 2024, we had a great opportunity with Elon Musk when he made an announcement to create a historic investment in Memphis through his company xAI. And the investment will lead to the world's largest supercomputer called Colossus. So Colossus is the core infrastructure behind Grok, which is the artificial intelligence system that Mr. Musk is developing, or has developed, and that I use and probably a lot of other people use. I've toured Colossus, and frankly, the capabilities are absolutely remarkable.

(02:00:46)
From what I understand with this project and with Elon Musk, is he places a strong emphasis on sourcing American-made products with xAI whenever feasible, demonstrating a commitment to domestic innovation. The issue is that supercomputers like Colossus depend on a variety of advanced components that right now are not produced in the United States, and I think we can all agree that we want the United States to be the absolute leader when it comes to AI. The other issue is the reliance presents obvious and serious strategic vulnerabilities because a disruption in the supply chain could hinder US capabilities. So I understand that the entire industry is working on building domestic capacity, and thanks to President Trump and his efforts and the efforts of the administration, we've seen massive investments from companies like Nvidia in Taiwan semiconductors. But I think we all also realize that that transition is going to be several years, or it's going to take several years.

(02:02:08)
So could you talk about how USTR is balancing the near-term need for components with the long-term goal of onshoring these critical supply chains?

Mr. Greer (02:02:24):

Certainly. So when the president took his action on reciprocal trade, there were some items that were not covered by the new tariff because further investigation was needed. This includes pharmaceuticals, as I've discussed, but it also includes semiconductors. And so many semiconductors are not covered by the reciprocal tariff because the commerce department, as I understand it, is looking into doing a further investigation to see where tariffs may or may not be appropriate on semiconductor chips or the downstream components. And that's something I know that the Commerce Department's looking at very closely.

Mr. Kustoff (02:02:57):

Thank you, Ambassador. If I can, because there's been a lot of talk here, some talk about Russia, and the suggestions that the Trump administration has let Russia off the hook when it comes to tariffs. My recollection is that this committee, several years ago, took the lead on bipartisan legislation to change the trade treatment as it relates to Russia, specifically revoking the permanent normal trade relations, specifically banning the import of all energy products from Russia, specifically by providing a path to raise tariffs on many other products from Russia. So in fairness, I know that both the Biden administration and the Trump administration have added to this legislation by imposing a wide range of sanctions on Russia which cut off most of trade and investment.

(02:03:56)
So my question to you is, would any Russian exporter feel that it has better access to the United States market than our non-sanctioned trading partners who may face higher tariffs right now?

Mr. Greer (02:04:10):

Oh, no, by no means. Russia is subject to a very high tariff due to the good work you did here in Congress, as well as other bad actors that fall into that category.

Mr. Kustoff (02:04:20):

Bipartisan.

Mr. Greer (02:04:21):

On a bipartisan basis, that's correct.

Mr. Kustoff (02:04:22):

Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (02:04:26):

Ms. Moore.

Ms. Moore (02:04:31):

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for visiting with us. I have to say that I have really appreciated the discussion that we've had here today with our colleagues, and as is always the case with me, I have remarks that are planned and then I make the mistake of listening to what other people have said. And I really do want to agree with some of the things my colleagues have said, like Mr. Smucker, and Mr. Kelly, and you, Mr. Ambassador, have said that we need to have access to markets. Specifically, Mr. Kelly said we can't afford to lose any market share, and I agree with him. He went on to say that we need to level the playing field.

(02:05:17)
Mr. LaHood talked about his soybean farmers in Illinois, and I'm from Wisconsin, sir, and so I do know that we have a $1.3 billion worth of soybean product, and our main partner is with China. And so I think Wisconsin farmers, that's just one example of how we are at risk of losing market share. And then Mr. Doggett went on to say how, instead of allowing, like my soybean farmers, to do that, what we would revert to would be to give them welfare. And I guess I don't agree with that characterization. I don't even agree with it as a characterization of subsidy, because it's actually a ripoff. Farmers lost about $27 billion in the first Trump administration, and they only got about $23 billion in subsidy return. So they lost money, they lost market share, and they lost lives.

(02:06:22)
In Wisconsin there was a study done, and they looked at suicide rates. And suicide rates among farmers are like three and a half times more than in other professions. It's a very stressful career. And so I am very concerned and I wonder what's going to happen to them. You haven't said to us… I think you skirted the question about whether or not we were going to give them subsidies. But even if we would give them subsidies, that would not prevent them from losing market share. And farmers don't want a check, they want to be able to farm. I also wonder, sir, what… I'm just saying, I think that when you look at trade deficits, I think we have to look at more than just what a tariff may or may not do. Our trade imbalances over time have been caused by us not having a trade balance on issue of labor laws, making sure that there's no slave labor and child labor, that the environment is protected when we extract materials and do stuff, that people have the ability to bargain in their countries and to make sure that they get a wage that's commensurate with their efforts. And I agree with Mr. Kelly that we need to level the playing field on those fields, and that a rising tide will lift all boats.

(02:07:54)
I do wonder, Mr. Ambassador, whether this administration's trade policy… And it seems that it does. My colleague here just mentioned the trade deficit that we have with Madagascar. I had the privilege to go on a trip with the committee to Madagascar, where there was a 75% poverty rate. So I'm wondering if they will ever, ever, ever be able to give us a trade balance. Speaking of Madagascar, they belong to AGOA, and I'm wondering if this administration's policies would eliminate something that's been bipartisan, the trade preference programs that we've had under AGOA. Yes or no, are we going to have an AGOA?

Mr. Greer (02:08:42):

So Congresswoman, thanks for your remark-

Ms. Moore (02:08:44):

Yeah, AGOA?

Mr. Greer (02:08:45):

Well, it's up to Congress. Congress has to decide if they're going to-

Ms. Moore (02:08:47):

No, up to the president. He's in charge of trade. We've sort of-

Mr. Greer (02:08:51):

Do you have a bill? I haven't seen the bill yet on this. If there's a bill, I'll advise the president accordingly on how he should approach it.

Ms. Moore (02:08:58):

Okay. I'll just say one last question to you. You say that we have got to reshore manufacturing. You did not say where folks will get the money and the confidence really to make these investments. Is any of the money that you plan to get from tariffs going to be targeted to incentivizing manufacturing? I've got a factory that made car frames, A. O. Smith, 10,000 people working there. When are we going to reopen A. O. Smith, sir? If the chairman-

Mr. Greer (02:09:35):

I would love to reopen that.

Ms. Moore (02:09:37):

When? Will I be alive? I'm going to be 74 in nine days.

Mr. Greer (02:09:41):

I hope so. We should go there, you and I, and talk to them about what they need in order to reopen. We've put tariffs in place on foreign auto parts.

Ms. Moore (02:09:45):

I mean, they've been shuttered for years.

Mr. Greer (02:09:47):

We want to create incentives so they can reopen.

Ms. Moore (02:09:50):

What's the timeline between the suffering that they're doing now and when A. O. Smith is going to open again?

Mr. Greer (02:09:57):

Part of the problem is these offshore jobs for so long and no one's taken action. We've sat on it. We have this huge… It is an emergency. And I agree with you, and I think comments have been very thoughtful.

Ms. Moore (02:10:05):

I don't have that much time. I mean, I'll be 74 in a few days. It's 10 years… It takes a long time to open up a factory and to get the investments.

Mr. Greer (02:10:15):

That's why the president acting now-

Ms. Moore (02:10:17):

Is it going to be 10 years? How long before we just have to be patient?

Mr. Greer (02:10:21):

That's why the president's acting now, because we can't wait anymore. We have to reshore now.

Ms. Moore (02:10:26):

Now, like a microwave now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.

Mr. Smith (02:10:31):

Thank you. I'll recognize myself for questions. Ambassador, thank you for calling and consulting with me before a lot of these trade agreements, so I appreciate the correspondence there, because you have. I also want to just raise the significance that I believe AGOA has for this country, and those trade preferences with those African nations, from a security perspective, is extremely important. And I hope that the administration continues to see, from a security perspective, that trade preferences with those African countries is extremely important.

Mr. Greer (02:11:17):

Chairman, I will certainly share your views with the president, and I've shared them before with others in the White House. And I understand the importance of AGOA to this committee and Congress. And I would encourage the committee as you look at it and potential renewal to think about ways to improve it.

Mr. Smith (02:11:34):

And I would love to work with you all to make sure that we can do that. It's just very important.

(02:11:41)
Also, I've heard a lot of conversations today, and one thing that I appreciate is Secretary Bessent's comments that I've read. He says, "Over the last four decades, Wall Street got very wealthy. But over the next four years, it's Main Street's turn." And that's in fact who the president's been fighting for, is for all those forgotten people in Southeast Missouri, in rural America, that their place of employment is now vacant. My mother was one of those individuals, I have numerous family members that's one of those individuals. And people will talk about their 401(k)s, but the reality is that the top 10% own 88% of all the stock market. The top 10. Then the next roughly 12%, as the secretary has said, the next 12% ownership of the stock market is the next 40%.

(02:12:53)
So that bottom 50%, the people who make less than $42,000 a year, those people, they're worried about their debt, their credit card payments, their interest rates. And that is who President Trump is fighting for in bringing more jobs in manufacturing, open up factories, and coming down here. And I want to thank you for standing here, I want to thank you for working for this cause. And I think it's extremely important and it will be transformational. It may be bumpy for a while, but it's about time Main Street is representative instead of Wall Street.

(02:13:35)
I want to ask you a few questions about the European Union. As you know, I have shared my opinion about the European Union and how disappointed I am of how they've taken advantage of US farmers and US agricultures. I heard them say that they're willing to lower their tariffs on industrial goods. That's not good enough, Ambassador. They have to address their non-tariff barriers when it comes to agriculture goods. The country of Honduras purchases more pork than the entire European Union, and there's only 10 million people there. There's 450 million people in the European Union. And then you look at the country of Angola, one of those African countries, they purchase more chicken from us than the entire European Union. And the European Union has a GDP times 200 of that in Angola. These are trade problems, and this administration better continue to fight for the American farmer, that Missouri farmer who's been screwed for such a long time by our friends. And I want to thank the president, I want to thank you for continuing with it.

(02:14:56)
I do want to ask you, do you agree that there's a serious trade problem when it comes to agriculture and the European Union?

Mr. Greer (02:15:09):

Yes, Chairman. It's fundamentally unfair. It's structurally unfair. It has been for decades. And I've been very clear with them that any kind of agreement, or negotiation, or anything, it has to have an ag component for all the reasons you described.

Mr. Smith (02:15:21):

Super important. Last year I requested the International Trade Commission to complete a detailed study of the competitiveness of the US rice industry, with a particular focus on the ways that unfair subsidies and other practices in other rice producing countries harm American rice farmers by distorting markets and reducing export opportunities. The study was completed earlier this year, and I was not surprised to learn that India is one of the worst offenders. Its subsidies

Mr. Smith (02:16:00):

… are particularly problematic because of the lack of transparency around some of them. Do you share my concerns with unfair practices in India and elsewhere that harm American rice farmers? And will you attempt to address these issues through any negotiations with India?

Mr. Greer (02:16:18):

Yes, I will. And as you know, Chairman, I'm from Northern California, from rice country there too, so I'm particularly sensitive to that.

Mr. Smith (02:16:27):

Appreciate it. Thank you for being here. Mr. Boyle.

Mr. Boyle (02:16:35):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador, for being here today. Three times in this century, three times in the last 25 years, we've had a recession, 2001 right after the September 11th attacks, 2008 when the housing bubble burst, and 2020 with COVID-19 pandemic. All three of those were caused by some external event. Now, most economists and most Wall Street firms agree that it is more likely than not we are either in a recession now or headed to one. This will be the first recession in at least 25 years directly caused by the President's policies. The last week has been an unmitigated disaster. Markets are roiled, retirement savings taking a hit 401Ks becoming 201Ks.

(02:17:36)
People are genuinely scared, especially those including a couple I talked to yesterday who are just hitting retirement age. So I would really like to know why exactly the President is doing this. China I completely understand. I think actually there's been bipartisan agreement around here for quite some time that we needed to get tougher with respect to China. But why going after Canada? Why going after our closest allies in Europe? This does not make any sense. And frankly, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence when the so-called formula that was advertised last week came from absolutely no textbook that any of us are aware of. I mean, yes, it had two fancy looking Greek letters. That does not make it well-thought-out policy. So I am curious what exactly the strategy is of going after Canada and our closest to allies and actually uniting the whole world right now not against China, but against the United States.

Mr. Greer (02:18:53):

Well, Congressman, I know that Wall Street and you and your colleagues want the status quo. That's what I'm hearing.

Mr. Boyle (02:18:58):

Excuse me. Reclaiming my time. That is not what I'm arguing. I want an end to the chaos. I represent a very working class district in Philadelphia. I don't think there's one person in my district who counts as one of the top 1% of Americans. Hardworking families, whether white, black, Hispanic, Asian, from northeast Philly to North Philly to the river wards are all being directly impacted by what is happening over the last week. So I want to know, they want to know why is it that three months ago, no one was predicting a recession. Everyone had growth projections, the Fed, most economists, whether liberal or conservative, and now the base case is a more than 60% chance of a recession. That is directly because of White House policies. So when will it be enough? Really, I can't take all this winning and nor can the American people and the folks in my district I represent.

Mr. Greer (02:20:02):

These Wall Street analysts are the same ones that predicted decline in the first Trump administration where-

Mr. Boyle (02:20:07):

Real Fed.

Mr. Greer (02:20:07):

Household medium income went up by $7,000 coupled with tariffs. The President has to get the trade deficit down. We've lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. It has been a massacre in American manufacturing, and we have to have those jobs back and it's urgent and we can't keep passing the buck. President Biden did nothing on trade for four years. That's what I've heard from both sides. And we have to act. We have a huge trade deficit with the European Union, which we heard about from the Chairman. We have huge trade deficit with foe and friend alike, and we have to deal with it. And that's why our friends are coming to us and saying, "Why don't we talk about how to achieve reciprocal trade?" They're not running away. They're not announcing retaliation.

Mr. Boyle (02:20:43):

So since I have just under a minute left, can we look forward to hearing about these big beautiful trade deals over the next week, like with Canada? What exactly is going on? These countries that are talking to us apparently right now, according to your words, do you have any hope that you can offer us that we're going to see one of these trade deals inked very soon?

Mr. Greer (02:21:07):

Congressman, I can't prejudge the timeline, but I'm spending all my time when I'm not here with you all doing consultations talking with them. So I'm hopeful that we can move quickly on a handful of cases.

Mr. Boyle (02:21:19):

And finally, just in the final 17 seconds, when will this end? What does success look like? Because a lot of people right now, whether Democrat, Republican, or independent, are really trying to figure out what exactly the end game looks like here because right now we all see the chaos and not what the actual end result would look like.

Mr. Greer (02:21:40):

The deficit needs to go in the right direction. Manufacturing as a share of GDP needs to go in the right direction. The non tariff barriers and tariffs we face in other countries, they have to go down in the right direction. Those are the things that we're looking at. Those are the basis of the national emergency. That's what we're looking at.

Mr. Boyle (02:21:55):

Time's expired. So thank you. I yield back.

Mr. Smith (02:21:56):

Mr. Steube.

Mr. Steube (02:21:58):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ambassador Greer, for appearing today. Under President Trump's leadership, we've seen a bold reassertion of American economic strength and leverage on the global stage. I'd like to walk through some of these wins and clarify the intent behind the administration's trade actions. Ambassador Greer, can you start by reminding this committee why President Trump felt it necessary to take such divisive action with tariffs and what problems he inherited from decades of failed globalist trade policy?

Mr. Greer (02:22:25):

Yes, certainly. As I've mentioned before, President Biden left us with the largest trade deficit for any country in human history. $1.2 trillion. It's extreme, it's unsustainable, especially when we have a $36 trillion debt and a two to $3 trillion budget deficit. None of these numbers are sustainable. And anyone who wants to pass this on to the next generation or to our kids or to the next session, they're doing a disservice. We have to deal with it now, and we need to deal with the reshoring and remanufacturing now before we're in another crisis. Whether it's a conflict or a pandemic, that is not the time to try to get back pharmaceuticals and semiconductors and autos and all these kinds of things. We have to do it now.

Mr. Steube (02:23:05):

What distinguishes the Trump approach from the past 30 years of so-called free trade policies that gutted our manufacturing base?

Mr. Greer (02:23:13):

Well, Wall Street… We've heard a lot about Wall Street today and how important Wall Street is and all their analysts and their entire goal has been just to make money for that top share of the elite. That's been their goal. And so they've been focused on offshoring so they have more efficiencies, so they can have cheaper labor, no environmental regulations. They can go to these low cost jurisdictions. And what does that mean? It means that we have workers who train their replacements in foreign countries. They lose their jobs and then they're in their hometown without a factory, without a job. And they live lives of despair in many cases. And that's what's different with President Trump. He wants to reverse that and he wants to change it.

Mr. Steube (02:23:51):

And isn't it true that over 60 countries have already come to the table to negotiate since the President announced the new reciprocal tariff structure?

Mr. Greer (02:23:58):

Well, I'm starting to lose count, but yes, that's the neighborhood of the folks who want to come in and work with us on reciprocal tariffs.

Mr. Steube (02:24:05):

And what does that say about the global leverage we've regained under this administration?

Mr. Greer (02:24:09):

Well, that's exactly right. We are the market destination for both consumption, investment, et cetera. And other countries want access to our market. They understand now that we have to have it on fair terms and that's why they're here. They'd be running the other way. That's why almost all of them have said, "We're not going to retaliate. We're going to work with the administration."

Mr. Steube (02:24:30):

And how important is it from a national security standpoint that we reduce our dependency on foreign steel, aluminum, and automotive components? And how have the tariffs moved us in that direction?

Mr. Greer (02:24:41):

That's a great point. With steel, aluminum, the President put tariffs on steel, aluminum in his first term. The Biden administration kept those in place. He's tightened up some of those tariffs now. And so we are able to maintain a steel industry. We're able to maintain an aluminum industry. These are things you have to have as inputs for weapon systems, for our infrastructure. And a country that doesn't have that kind of hard manufacturing power behind it isn't going to have the soft diplomat power you need to navigate a challenging world.

Mr. Steube (02:25:12):

And do you believe that President Trump's tariff policy has reestablished America economic sovereignty where we no longer have to beg foreign governments to treat us fairly?

Mr. Greer (02:25:21):

Yeah, I think there's no question about that. And we can see it from the first term when we imposed tariffs on China in an effort to get them to change their unfair trading practices. When that happened, we saw our trade deficit with China decrease, which is really important. So it shows that we can become less dependent on foreign powers for the most critical goods and services.

Mr. Steube (02:25:40):

And how important has President Trump's leadership, his willingness to stand up to global elites and foreign governments been in reasserting the United States as a trade power?

Mr. Greer (02:25:48):

Well, it's been historic. It's been historic because in the past we've had leaders and politicians who were either in the pocket of Wall Street or they had some other special interest and he's been willing to take a stand and do hard things and show others that he's not going to cave. This is really important because if other countries… Other countries think about power in a different way. Some politicians want foreign countries to say nice things about them. That's like their end purpose in foreign policy or trade policy. President Trump wants the right thing for Americans, and sometimes it means you have to stand up for yourself, draw a line in the stand and say, "We're not going to do this anymore."

Mr. Steube (02:26:27):

Would you say for the first time in decades, American workers have a President who fights for them, not for multinational corporations or foreign bureaucrats?

Mr. Greer (02:26:34):

That's exactly right, Congressman. That's why workers voted for him. That's why unions support the tariff actions. That's why we see op-eds in the newspaper about union Presidents wanting to work with President Trump on trade. That's why we're seeing all of that change, that realignment.

Mr. Steube (02:26:49):

And I'll end with this. What evidence have you seen that President Trump's tariffs are driving jobs back to the United States and helping to rebuild our manufacturing base?

Mr. Greer (02:26:56):

Well, for example, the auto tariffs that were imposed, we've already seen that one company is increasing employment including temporary employment in Indiana. We've seen in Tennessee there was a shift that was going to go down to another country. They kept that shift in America. Everyone knows if you want certainty, if you want access, you build in America and you use American labor.

Mr. Steube (02:27:15):

Thank you. My time's expired.

Mr. Smith (02:27:17):

I recognize the acting Ranking Member, Ms. Moore.

Ms. Moore (02:27:24):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to enter a letter into the record to Wisconsin Republican members of Congresswoman from Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, his objection to the Trump tariffs.

Mr. Smith (02:27:37):

Without objection.

Ms. Moore (02:27:38):

Thank you.

Mr. Smith (02:27:41):

Mr. Beyer.

Mr. Beyer (02:27:46):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Ambassador Greer, you have a most awful job trying to convince us and the people we represent that the President's trade policies are wise and measured when the truth is they are stupid and bad. The last time the US started a trade war, Smoot-Hawley tariffs, June, 1930, the world did retaliate and we got the Great Depression that lasted 10 years. I want to quickly run through a few of the ways the logic behind the Trump tariffs make no sense. You got the math wrong according to the people whose research you cited. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a New York Times article by former treasury official Brent Neiman titled, "The Trump White House Cited my Research to Justify Tariffs. It Got it All Wrong."

(02:28:30)
The math there had the effect of quadrupling the tariffs Trump applied on some of our biggest trading partners. Trump accepted some goods, notably oil, but not others, including the things we simply cannot produce in the United States. Why tariff bananas? Why tariff cocoa? Why tariff coffee? We don't have the capacity to produce these things at a scale that meets domestic demand. Trump logic equates any trade deficit with cheating. In fact, he called it rape. But even this stupid logic didn't help Australia or Brazil or Singapore, all countries with whom we have a trade surplus. How does Australia negotiate an end to a trade deficit that doesn't exist?

(02:29:11)
Some countries have a deficit because we import things that we want, but they're too poor to afford our exports. Perfect example is Madagascar. We buy something like 60% of our vanilla from Madagascar, but they have one of the lowest GDP per capita race in the world, and they just can't afford many of our products, but we just hit them with the 47% tariff. Trump is hinting that maybe if countries lower tariffs on us, he might drop tariffs on them a little bit or some, or possibly… Vietnam, knowing that Trump was coming, massively cut their tariffs to appease him ahead of his announcement last week. And instead you slapped a 46% tariff on them anyway. So what are the Vietnamese supposed to do?

(02:29:54)
Trump declared a phony national emergency and imposed tariffs on Canada to punish our closest ally for "fentanyl smuggling" despite the fact that our own government says the amount of smuggling at the northern border is vanishingly small, less than 1%. How does Canada get out of a tariff and impose on them for doing something that we admit they're not doing? Trump is risking our economy to bring back factory jobs that pay far less than the 8 million jobs that are listed in the Jolts Report right now, 8 million jobs available in America that pay far more in fast-growing sectors like healthcare, clean energy, or data science.

(02:30:31)
The Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, is on television raving about shifting millions of Americans to work on "screwing in little screws to make iPhones." You guys are blasting nearly every product from really every country with these tariffs. Senator Tillis yesterday called it a "trade war on all fronts." It hurts our alliances, it hurts our economy, it hurts our ability to make and keep free trade agreements, which is supposedly your job. Ambassador Greer, the world is watching you. They're watching this hearing across the country. Global markets are in chaos. The US economy and our most important alliances are in serious danger. I had met a couple of nights ago with a dozen ambassadors from Eastern Asia, and the conclusion of the discussion was that we are creating a unipolar Asia, an Asia led by China with America excluded. America first is America alone.

(02:31:25)
And meanwhile, you're now serving as acting head of both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. These are both busy jobs in the best of times, but extremely demanding during one of the most ethically challenged Presidential administrations in history. It is absurd to think that you're actually doing these jobs, but I think it's fair to ask if the many hat are supposedly wearing are causing dangerous mistakes that damage our country in ways it's going to be difficult to recover from. President Trump also imposed tariffs on China. China responded with tariffs on agriculture. European Union today announced $ 21 billion worth of new retaliatory tariffs on us. China has announced 84% retaliatory tariffs on us.

(02:32:07)
The legal pretext you said is that this is a national emergency. You refer to the state of emergency as "the largest and persistent trade deficit that's built up in recent years." The actual emergency is that markets are slumping, consumer competence is crashing, and financial forecasts of recession are coming pretty quickly. And the Fed is projecting that these tariffs are driving prices up. We finally got inflation down. Now we're going to do exactly the opposite. Coming to the table, I don't know, our trade balance has been in the negative for 50 years, and yet we have built the strongest economy in the history of mankind. This is a terrible way to fix the way of bringing back meaningful employment to our low-income Americans. This is not the way to do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Smith (02:32:52):

Mr. Arrington.

Mr. Arrington (02:32:55):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my friend's comments. Just to take off on treating low-income Americans, it's no way to treat our workers whose wages have been suppressed because of this unfair and unlevel playing field, who by the way, because of the policies of the last four years, have paid a regressive 21% inflation tax. So our working families and our manufacturers and those who make the wheels turn in this economy have suffered a great deal. But other countries will flat put us out of the manufacturing business, out of the energy production business, out of the food making business if we let them. I thank God that, for such a time as this, he raised up a leader with the political courage to take on the political and corporate establishment that is going to do everything in its power to stop you and the President from hitting reset before it's too late, before we not only beg for our drug making and our chip making from other countries whom we are totally dependent on, but before we have to beg to feed our families and fuel our economy.

(02:34:33)
I can't think of, other than the budget deficit, a greater threat to America's economic vitality, prosperity, and national security. I'm a hundred percent unwaveringly, unequivocally in support of President Trump's and your reciprocal trade policy. I can't imagine anyone along the spectrum from right to left politically who wouldn't want head-to-head competition for our guys. And we have allowed this unfair trade dynamic to persist for so long, there's no way out of this without some front end pain. And I'm grateful that we have a leader who's not trying to diminish that or hide that fact, but is transparently calling this nation to persist through this front end so that we have exponential benefits and return to our economy, to our workers, to our farmers.

(02:35:52)
There is no other path and there is no other politician in this town that would ever risk what is necessary to risk and to exert the courage and will that is necessary to exert to confront this head on like President Trump and you. And we're with you. I'm with you and I know many of my colleagues are. Couple questions. When we went through this before in the first Trump administration, we were, I'd say, wildly successful with the reforms in China, with new free trade agreements, agreements in five nations that represented almost 50% of our entire export markets. So how important was the reciprocal trade posture in the first administration to getting lower barriers, greater access to those markets where we benefited by 26 plus percent in export activity, our wages went up, investment went up, job creation went up, poverty went down? How important is this posture to getting there? And is there any other way, Mr. Ambassador, to this greener and more glorious economic pasture once we establish the reciprocal trade dynamic?

Mr. Greer (02:37:36):

Congressman, thank you for your support and your words. You're exactly right. There are a few different approaches to trade negotiations. One is the typical one, which is where you ask others nicely to give you market access and they do a dialogue with you for several years. And at the end you have no more market access. And then there's the Trump way where he says, "We will have reciprocal trade and we can do it my way or we can do it your way, but we can work together because we should work together and we should have fair trade among us." And that's what we're seeing now. We're seeing countries come and say, "We understand the issue. We're happy to talk about this. And we know that there are alternative pathways here and we can choose which way we want to go." And that's the way to do it.

Mr. Arrington (02:38:16):

I'm grateful for both of you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith (02:38:20):

Thank you. Ms. Tinney.

Ms. Tinney (02:38:22):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador Greer, for your hard work. I'm from upstate New York. This is the home of the Industrial Revolution, the Erie Canal Corridor, the Finger Lakes, all my region. Number one dairy district in the Northeast, number five dairy district in the country, third largest producing apple county is in my district. Really important when it comes to trade. And we have always been grateful for the work of President Trump and the administration for trying to understand that we've been hollowed out by China and Asia and other countries and we want to bring those jobs back. Really important part of not just the building of New York, but the building of the entire United States and our strength leading up through the World War I, World War II, and into today.

(02:39:05)
I got a couple of questions I just want to talk to you a little bit about because there are a few nuanced issues here dealing with Canada, which is my entire northern border. Number one, we have an emerging and really strong Finger Lakes wine region and many of our wineries have reached out to us. We are at the cusp of putting out some really incredible wines, groundbreaking. We have wonderful water, soil conditions, and we're producing top level wines. A little bit about… Some of these markets we'd like to have opened up for us so we can trade and we appreciate the work that the President is doing.

(02:39:41)
However, one of the issues we've experienced and we hope that you can work on is many of our Canadian visitors are not coming to our region. We're dependent on the Canadians to come for commerce. They're a great friend to the north. We've seen a 23% drop just since February in visitors to our wineries. We just want to know if we can get your assistance and help in making sure that this sort of very important yet fragile relationship that my district has with Canada, an historically strong relationship, we can continue to work to make sure that we get that kind of trade and the kind of tourism that we've been getting from our Canadian friends to the north.

Mr. Greer (02:40:21):

Certainly. And I would note that goods between Canada and the United States that follow the rules of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, they continue to trade on a duty-free basis, which makes sense, right?

Ms. Tinney (02:40:34):

Yeah.

Mr. Greer (02:40:34):

And I would say-

Ms. Tinney (02:40:35):

And I know you're going to jump into this because this is my next beef, but when it comes to Canada, we are grateful and hope that you'll continue to pursue some of the dumping that's been going on against our dairy producers because as I cited in my start, we are a huge dairy producer and we're getting unfair treatment. We think in the last administration, this was not resolved favorably to our dairy markets because Canada continues to bring milk proteins that we think that are in violation of USMCA and I know that's what you're going to get to.

Mr. Greer (02:41:04):

Yes, no, it's certainly-

Ms. Tinney (02:41:05):

On the flip side of the winery.

Mr. Greer (02:41:08):

Yeah, that's certainly the top of my list. I would point out that President Trump reported that he had a constructive call with Prime Minister Kearney last week, 10 days ago or so. And I continue to work with my Canadian counterparts to make sure that that relationship is one where we can have fair trade.

Ms. Tinney (02:41:23):

Yeah, we greatly appreciate it. And when it comes to apples, we just have to say we are so excited about the USTR's efforts in trying to reduce some of these market access barriers. Particularly with Israel going to zero tariffs, our apples hopefully will be sold all around the world. We're famous for them. We don't get the subsidies that some of the other states get in the state of New York, and we're hoping that we can do that, including getting our apples to India and around the world to actually grow our New York economy. So we appreciate all that the USTR is doing that.

(02:41:52)
I think that we can have a great relationship in the future with Canada and we are really pleased that you're working with the Prime Minister and working with everyone that we can to make sure that that northern border is protected, but also that we're getting the trade that we're so accustomed to with our great friends from the north and Canada. And those are primary issues for us. Also want to make sure that some of our supply chains… I know this isn't your sphere, but when it comes to aluminum, when it comes to copper, we have some of the best manufacturers and the oldest manufacturers in the entire nation in our region. And we're dependent on Canada for those things.

(02:42:26)
So when we look into the tariffs and some of the negotiation, and I know there's going to be some tinkering with the tariffs as we look into the next couple months, we just know that you and the President will work with us on making sure that we continue to keep these legacy businesses that we have across our region that were part of our nation's real boom when the Industrial Revelation was founded. And I have to mention, it's not technically in my district anymore, but our famous patriot, Paul Revere, actually started his copper company in my region. Revere Copper is still operating today after being founded in 1801. So it's really important to New York that we continue these legacy businesses and continue to work to bring our supply chains back.

(02:43:05)
And I just want to say thank you, helping us with dairy, with apples, and also making sure that those Finger Lakes wines become premier and actually continue to grow as we see them emerging with so much hard work being done by so many people in my region. And we're grateful to you and so continue to work. We appreciate the effort on behalf of our district and behalf of the President. Thanks so much.

Mr. Greer (02:43:27):

Well, thank you. And I look forward to continuing working with you and your staff on these issues.

Ms. Tinney (02:43:31):

Thank you.

Mr. Smith (02:43:33):

Mr. Evans.

Mr. Evans (02:43:35):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, I'm deeply concerned about the tariffs and we are talking about it today. Philadelphia is the poorest big city in America and it's hurting low income people. There's a lot of money for a lot of people. Tariffs can only be used in a smart and effective way. And I feel, from what I heard, it has not. It is something that we are concerned about. And I start out with this question. Ambassador Geer, my first question, what specifically is the President hoping to help the residents of Philadelphia deal with the higher cost of living that these tariffs would put on average household? Does the President have a very specific plan and strategy to address the near term harm it has created?

Mr. Greer (02:44:41):

Congressman, the President wants to ensure that we have good manufacturing jobs that pay higher wages to your constituents, just like what happened in the first term. He wants that to happen again, that they can have more money, better jobs and stable environment and reshore manufacturing at the same time.

Mr. Evans (02:44:56):

So what would you say specifically? How would you describe that?

Mr. Greer (02:45:00):

Well, I would say to your members and your constituents that we've had a long period of 5 million manufacturing jobs going away. It's dangerous for our country, it's bad for our economies and our families. And the President is taking action to create economic conditions to have more factories here, jobs here in their communities where they can have the types of income that they need to have to have stability for the working class, for the middle class, not just for the super rich who go and get three or four degrees, but for honest, hardworking Americans who graduate from high school and need a job and they can have one that's stable and supports our manufacturing.

Mr. Evans (02:45:37):

Mr. Ambassador, Pennsylvania exports today $46 billion in manufactured product. These exports support 150,000 people's jobs in the state. I'm concerned that the threat of retaliation from the trading partners will further hurt Pennsylvania. So can you specifically speak to that issue?

Mr. Greer (02:46:04):

Yes. This is something that we watch really closely as well. In advance of the tariff action, I had many conversations with our major trading partners and we told them, "Wait and see what happens on April 2, and then we can talk about what comes next." And so now most of our major trading partners have said, "We're not going to retaliate against you. We want to talk to you about how to have more reciprocal trade." And that's a good outcome.

Mr. Evans (02:46:29):

I want to also talk about industry and small business, the effect that it will have specifically when you talk about Philadelphia on small business. Can you speak to that?

Mr. Greer (02:46:41):

Certainly. I've actually tasked my staff to work with the Small Business Administration to make sure we're getting the feedback we need from our small businesses. I have an advisory council on small business at USTR and I've asked my staff to convene that council so we can hear directly from them because we want to make sure that we are hearing feedback in real time. I can give it to the President and we can understand how the program is working.

Mr. Evans (02:47:08):

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Greer (02:47:08):

Thank you.

Mr. Smith (02:47:09):

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Fitzpatrick (02:47:10):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Ambassador Greer, thank you for being here, and thank you for your commitment to spend time with this committee today and answer everybody's questions. Leveling the trade relationship the United States has with other countries, I believe, must be a bipartisan goal, especially when our nation's security and wellbeing are on the line. I do believe that the means by which we accomplish that vision, however, matters a great deal. My priority, which I'm certain that you share, and I hope this whole committee shares, is to ensure that any long-term economic gains which the American people could achieve in a more balanced trade environment are not washed away by the near term pains they may feel at their local supermarket, hardware store, pharmacy, or restaurant.

(02:47:59)
I believe it's essential that Congress and the administration come together to find that middle ground, to maximize the benefits and limit the cost of our nation's trade policy. Above all else, we must deliver greater certainty and economic stability for our consumers, our workers, and our families. I want to zoom in on medicines in particular, sir. What work do you believe can be done with our closest partners and American companies who are operating in the European Union to ensure that the cost of distinct, innovative prescription drugs and medical devices are affordable for our nation's seniors, particularly those with rare diseases or disabilities?

Mr. Greer (02:48:40):

Well, I think if we can have a supply chain that's more secure, more resilient, and more local, that's going to be something that's going to help with efficiency. This idea that we have this very fragile supply chain where we ship initial inputs from China to India and they go elsewhere and they get finished in another country and they come here, that may work in a world where there's just in time manufacturing and where you're ignoring manufacturing jobs in the US but in a world like we're seeing now where there's conflict, there are pandemics, there are wars, that model doesn't work very well and the costs become very high. And so if we are able to reshore large aspects of that or have it with close allies, that's going to be helpful.

Mr. Fitzpatrick (02:49:21):

Switching gears to national security, I want to thank you for your work to end the de minimis exemption for the People's Republic of China. This loophole has been more than an economic giveaway to foreign competitors at the expense of American retailers and manufacturers, has also allowed our adversaries to funnel fentanyl and other synthetic opioid drugs into our communities. I was down at the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, as it's called. Their chief complaint, and this is coming from the Department of Homeland Security, they focus on the de minimus exception as a major vulnerability for fentanyl getting into this country. So in addition to the manufacturing issue, we had the fentanyl issue as

Mr. Fitzpatrick (02:50:00):

Well, as this administration evaluates how the US should alter or eliminate the de minimis standard for other nations beyond the PRC, particularly those for which have credibly abused the process to the detriment of countless Americans' health and safety, what metrics do you believe should be prioritized?

Mr. Greer (02:50:23):

So de minimis is really a customs and border protection issue. It's not my jurisdiction, but I think some of the things you've talked about, the loss of revenue, tariff evasion through use of de minimis, counterfeits coming through the de minimis program, illicit substances coming through the de minimis program. These are all the types of things that need to be captured, whether it's from China or elsewhere. I think it's a real problem and I think customs border protection should look into that.

Mr. Fitzpatrick (02:50:52):

And finally, very briefly, sir, on the USMCA, recognizing that the agreement is facing a sunset review process that needs to be completed by July of 2026. Can you share any details about how you anticipate that review will be conducted?

Mr. Greer (02:51:09):

Certainly there are a few parts to this. First of all, there's a public consultation process that's set out in the statute that US Chair will follow, will follow the law. There's a congressional consultation process, which of course will follow. When I think about ways to enhance USMCA or our relationships with our trading partners, one thing that I'm very focused on is making sure that other trading partners don't benefit from the agreement without agreeing to the obligations of the agreement. I'm thinking of China or other Asian countries that want to use Canada and Mexico as an export base into the United States and benefit from the USMCA. I don't think that's the right approach. We need to change that.

Mr. Fitzpatrick (02:51:46):

Just one follow-up, will USMCA qualifying trade, which was not covered under the April 2nd tariffs, continue to be excluded in advance of this review to ensure certainty for our manufacturers?

Mr. Greer (02:51:59):

That is currently the status right now, and again, I'm not on the homeland security front here, but I understand that Canada and Mexico have been working with the administration on those issues and so for now that status continues.

Mr. Fitzpatrick (02:52:14):

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Feenstra (02:52:22):

I now recognize Representative Fischbach from Minnesota.

Mrs. Fischbach (02:52:26):

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Ambassador, for being here and for all of the opportunity that we've had to have conversations or discussions about what's happening. And thank you for answering all of the tough or maybe not so tough questions today. So I appreciate, and you may already know, but I represent a large rural, mostly agricultural district, and so we do it all. We've got corn, soybeans, hogs, turkeys and dairy, but we also grow sugar beets. So I was going to ask you, I'm a strong supporter obviously of the sugar program, which has allowed our farmers, sugar refiners and end users of that sugar to invest in strong and robust domestic sugar industry. And so my first question very quickly, will you commit to working with myself and other members to protect the sugar program and to promote the domestic industry?

Mr. Greer (02:53:19):

Definitely, happy to do that.

Mrs. Fischbach (02:53:21):

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And many of the other farmers in my district rely on exporting their products around the globe. While China is a major customer of US agriculture, farmers are constantly searching for new market access and expanding market access in other countries. We've seen reports of numerous nations coming to the table and I think it's over 50 now with President Trump to negotiate new trade agreements. What are the opportunities in these negotiations to increase access for American farmers?

Mr. Greer (02:53:53):

Certainly, as I think was mentioned earlier, perhaps by Congresswoman Tenney, Israel has come and we've had a trade agreement with them for a long time. People are surprised to find out that despite the trade agreement, they still have tariffs on some of our agricultural goods and so they've offered that that's something that they're willing to look at. We've heard from Vietnam, we've heard from India, we've heard from Argentina. We've heard from all kinds of countries that they're interested in not only getting the tariffs down but getting down the non tariff barriers, which often are more problematic than the tariffs themselves. So I think there's a lot of opportunity there if these countries are willing to really engage in reciprocal trade.

Mrs. Fischbach (02:54:29):

And I think I know the answer, but I just want to just, will you work with me and other members of this committee to make sure that farmers have a voice in the negotiations so that we are heard and are part of it?

Mr. Greer (02:54:41):

Yes, certainly. We have a series of advisory committees that involve agricultural stakeholders. We manage those jointly with the US Department of Agriculture. I've already talked to Secretary Rollins about this and the importance of meeting with these committees so we can have their feedback directly.

Mrs. Fischbach (02:54:56):

And we are talking a lot about reducing America's reliance on Chinese imports to our country, and I think that's important, and I'm sure you do too. I think we learned a lot during COVID and over the last few years, but I think it's also important that we give farmers the opportunity to reduce their reliance on exports to China by providing them with new markets. And I know that we just are talking about that, but I think it's important that we say it over and over and that we make sure that we include those farmers and that we are looking for new markets because that is what they want to produce and they want somewhere to sell it.

(02:55:30)
So maybe that's not even a question as much as just a statement, but I appreciate your willingness to work with us, protecting the sugar program, making sure our farmers are involved in these negotiations and that we are doing our best because it's been the last few years that we have not had that outreach to create new markets and find new markets for our ag products. So I hope that we are going to be very aggressive about that and really helping our farmers because it's important that we strengthen and build that market and the farms in our country. So thank you for being here. I hope I made it really easy on you because you've had a tough day, but thank you very much and I yield back Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Feenstra (02:56:16):

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Snyder from Illinois for five minutes.

Mr. Snyder (02:56:19):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I'm not going to make it any easier on you, Ambassador, but I will pick up on what Ms. Fischbach and Schweikert before said. Ambassador Greer, yes or no, didn't Israel zero out all tariffs on US products before President Trump announces across the board tariffs on April 2nd?

Mr. Greer (02:56:35):

They indicate they're willing…

Mr. Snyder (02:56:36):

Just yes or no.

Mr. Greer (02:56:37):

They did not do it yet. They announced they wanted to.

Mr. Snyder (02:56:39):

They announced it, but yet President still imposed 17% tariffs on Israel. Ambassador Greer, what's our trade balance with the elephant and fur seals, petrels, albatrosses and penguins living unheard in McDonald Islands?

Mr. Greer (02:56:50):

They're part of Australia's customs union…

Mr. Snyder (02:56:52):

But they're separate and I'm going to reclaim my time. The President has imposed specific tariffs on herd in McDonald Islands while not taking any action against Russia, Belarus, North Korea or Cuba. And I don't want to disappoint my mom and my wife or have them yell at me, but Mr. Greer, I'm going to say what I think almost everyone is thinking, WTF, what's the President thinking? What did he and you think was going to happen after unilaterally declaring a global trade war? Did you expect the so-called liberation day to become liquidation week, destroying more than $10 trillion of value and moving us from an extended bull market into a self-induced bear? Did you intentionally plan to decimate American's retirement accounts and 529 accounts for their kids' education? Did you and the President anticipate raising prices for American families already struggling to make ends meet? Did you mean to make American businesses less, not more competitive in global markets?

(02:57:52)
Was the intention with the largest tax increase in US history to put the United States and maybe the entire global economy into a recession because of what Wall Street Journal editorial board… Let me repeat this. It was the Wall Street Journal editorial board said is the dumbest trade war in history. Already, Diane Swonk, the chief economist at KPMG is saying that her baseline forecast is a recession starting this quarter, Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan have raised their probability of recession to 79%. The Wall Street General reports, the betting markets have it at 70% and Goldman Sachs recently again raised their likelihood the second time since this trade war started to 45% and I expect that will rise again. Indeed, by the time you have finished this hearing, I wouldn't be surprised if we already were in a recession. Less than a week after President Trump's declaration of again the largest sales tax in US history, global markets continue to roil as a result of tariff based recession fears.

(02:58:54)
The President's newly imposed tariffs have real-world impacts on every one of my constituents who will see higher prices at the grocery store, shortages of critical products and less money in their retirement accounts and the accounts for their kids' education. American families deserve relief but instead, thanks to President Trump and you, they're heading to the store to panic-buy essentials before retailers raise their prices. I've heard from literally thousands of constituents about the pain that President Trump has said this country will suffer as a result of these tariffs. They have written to me sharing that they have lost as much as 20% of their 401(k) and 529 accounts in the last week alone due to market fluctuations that are responding in real time to the President's announcements of arbitrary and capricious tariffs. Seniors who recently retired are worried about having to return to work to make sure they can make ends meet and today wonder if they will now outlive their retirement savings.

(02:59:55)
Small business owners are worried about laying off employees. Large companies in my district are preparing their next earnings report for investors and telling me that the impacts of these tariffs are material. That's business speak for the tariffs are going to have a real adverse effect on their operations and likely adverse effect on their cash flows. Make no mistake, President Trump's trade agenda is slowing economic growth and job creation, weakening US global leadership and increasing the cost of doing business in the United States. These tariffs make life for Americans more expensive, make our nation less secure and our citizens less prosperous. Congress must take back its constitutional authority to stop the chaos and the pain President Trump is inflicting on American families and dig us out of what could be a self-inflicted recession. Before I ask a question with my limited time, I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record the CIA World Factbook entry for Heard Island and McDonald Island.

Mr. Feenstra (03:00:51):

Without objection.

Mr. Snyder (03:00:52):

I also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record an article from Scientific American, the Heard Island and McDonald Islands are a Pristine Biological Wonderland. The subtitle of the article is 'Trump's Tariffs Put a Spotlight on the Uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands, Which Comprise a Remote Volcanic Refuge for Penguins and Seals and a UNESCO World Heritage Site'. This just, once again, illustrates that these tariffs are not strategic, they're not targeted, they're arbitrary and capricious and hurting our economy and are American citizens. I yield back.

Mr. Feenstra (03:01:26):

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Moore from Utah for five minutes.

Mr. Moore (03:01:31):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, thanks for being here. And as I've said to you before, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the communication and the ability to dialogue. This hearing's, in my opinion, one of the most important hearings that we've had and it's been very important for folks to be able to hear this out and thank you for providing details and responses. We've talked a lot about trade deficits today in this hearing, and I have concerns about how we went about some of the calculations with just focusing on imbalance. But that completely aside, what I wanted to actually bring was the other side of this equation.

(03:02:09)
So we run massive trade surpluses and services with just about every major economy in the world, especially in high value and high employment technology software industries, and recognizing that there's digital service taxes that we don't like and we try to address some of that on the tax side and we're going to work on retaliatory tax side with that in this committee actually, the Europeans, Koreans, Japanese, they're all allowing our US tech firms to run surpluses in their markets for a reason. We have the best talent and the most skilled innovators in the world. My question here is what are the consequences for American power and national security if they were able to retaliate and restrict access to American services in their market because we've chosen to restrict goods in their market in response to that?

Mr. Greer (03:02:56):

So the good news on this is all of these countries, most of them have said that they are not going to retaliate and they want to talk to us and they're mindful that even though we have surpluses in many of these areas, they still have a lot of barriers against our folks. And this giant book that we put out, that I hope one day we never have to put out again, a lot of this are about the services barriers we have including in our friendly partners. So my expectation is that they will bring those barriers down. That's my expectation.

Mr. Moore (03:03:26):

And this is where I draw some optimism, but we're really early in this. If this is prolonged, does their position on no retaliatory commitment, does that wane? And that's something we have to be hyper-focused on and we've got to be vigilant. I have a big concern and to what extent would you have a concern, are we at the risk of losing the AI race to China if we lose our innovative edge and our exporting advantage over China?

Mr. Greer (03:03:55):

So I think that we benefit from having huge innovation here in the United States. We have an economy that cultivates innovation, we prioritize it. We have an intellectual property system that protects it, you don't have those kinds of things in China. You don't have that level of protection. You don't have that level of attractiveness. Now we can't be complacent by any means. I think it's incumbent on us to continue to have domestic laws and incentives to make sure that we're innovating here. It's important to have manufacturing because manufacturing and innovation go along with each other.

Mr. Moore (03:04:23):

I'm going to add to that. So really what this boils down to, and I'll try to make it a little personal here, you and I went to rival universities. We're still working through some of those challenges.

Mr. Greer (03:04:35):

For now.

Mr. Moore (03:04:35):

Yeah, we may never see eye to eye on it, but we were both probably 40 minutes away from world-class ski resorts on the Wasatch Back during those college years. During college, I always went to the Sports Den, it's a local sporting goods store and I've known the owner Mark for over 30 years. Every banner at every little league thing has his banner there. He's committed, he's committed to the neighborhood, to the community. He's weathered the e-commerce revolution. He's weathered COVID. He's been able to sustain his business through some of the toughest times. I took my son's bike in there on Saturday to get fixed and I've never seen him like this. I've never seen him so anxious, so nervous about what's going… He pointed to everything in his shop. I buy ski equipment from him. We rent stuff from him, all the gear. I've never seen him like this. And I would ask you, what do I say to him? He's really nervous right now and I know it's impacting, I know it's just a lot of concern. What do I say to him?

Mr. Greer (03:05:46):

Well, I wish there was a silver bullet for this, Congressman, because I'm sensitive to this and you all have constituents, whatever side of the aisle you're on who are talking to you about this. The challenge is that we've seen 90, 000 factories leave the United States and we can have either the status quo and continue to lose that and continue to be dependent on other countries, in many cases, foreign adversaries for our businesses. To me that's very fragile. To me, that's very high risk that we have to be so import-dependent for our well-being. We're always going to trade. We have to have this reset.

(03:06:20)
We need to move quickly. We have countries in right now trying to negotiate their way to more reciprocal trade. A country like China, they're always going to have their own agency and make their own decisions and they've never been a reliable trading partner in a lot of ways. We've always been at the mercy of that. So it's hard to go in your constituent and say that because they'll say, "Well, Ambassador Greer said this macro thing." I understand that. Please keep in touch. As we hear the effects of this, it's good for me to know about it so I can tell the President and I can continue to communicate this. We've heard stories about this and we are concerned.

Mr. Moore (03:06:54):

So that's what I said to him. I said to him, because of our communication, he's still just as nervous. And that's just why I wanted to share with you and your team how important and crucial your job is over the next little bit. Because if this is looming, you have an incredible opportunity to do some of the good we did in the first Trump administration to get us to there. We're not there. I'm scared that we're not going to get there. I don't see the strategy to get there, but I know we can and I really have a lot of confidence in you and your team to be able to get us there. And I yield back.

Mr. Feenstra (03:07:30):

I now recognize Mr. Panetta from California for five minutes.

Mr. Panetta (03:07:36):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And Ambassador Greer, thanks for being here. I admit before this week, talked to a lot of my colleagues about you. They actually said a lot of good things about you. You got a good reputation until this week, I have to say, because I actually wanted to work with you on solutions when it comes to free trade agreements. I think we still can once we get past this, and I hope that's the case. But unfortunately, you're defending a policy here from President Trump that's absolutely incoherent and inchoate. It's a self-imposed tariff regime of 10 times the amount of tariffs that were in place before this President took office. It is the largest self-inflicted wound to our economy in history, a self-inflicted wound that if it stays in place, it could constitute the largest tax increase on working families in more than 40 years, costing households more than $3,800 per year.

(03:08:31)
A self-inflicted wound that prompted one of the largest three-day moves on the markets since World War II. And it's a self-inflicted wound that's leading investors to expect a severe economic slowdown. Eight years ago, this President talked about American carnage. Little did we know that he would create economic carnage that is spreading something similar across the entire global economy. Now, the reason for these tariffs is based on a national emergency that we have trade deficits according to him and you. Unfortunately, the President's thinking about trade is reflected in this policy, this weekend after the markets tanked, after small businesses fretted and after the President played golf all weekend, the President said, "I consider any trade deficit a loss." That type of scorecard thinking combined with the President's forty-year fetish for tariffs, that has put this policy in place and put us in the global economy in this position. Now, I know the President is painting all trade deficits as bad, but they are a product of larger macroeconomic factors relating to a number of things as you know well, savings, investments, cultural demographics and so on. But the President is acting completely irrational when it comes to trade deficits. He believes that trade deficits are subsidies paid by Americans to other countries. His scorecard ignores our trade surpluses and services to the tune of 250 billion annually. He's oblivious to the relationship of trade deficits to foreign investment in America in that when we send dollars abroad for goods and services, most of those dollars ultimately come back to America. And he refuses to grasp that tariffs are taxes paid by American importers and Americans, not foreigners. A perfect example of this unreasonableness is our reasonable trade deficit with Canada. The reason we have a trade deficit with Canada is because starting with FDR, we entered into an agreement that would sell us oil at well below market prices.

(03:10:31)
We entered into and maintained that deal because we… And we maintained a trade deficit with Canada so that we can buy cheap oil, which is a huge benefit for America. And if we took that oil out of our trade relationship, guess what? We'd have a trade surplus. Yet Trump says we're getting ripped off even though we are actually getting the benefit of that sweetheart deal. Now, absolutely, sometimes a trade deficit is a loss. Foreign trade barriers are a problem, that includes tariffs and non-tariff barriers, but there are ways to remedy these things. Free trade agreements, as I talked about, free trade agreements that don't require a tariff policy that cripples our economy. Yet due to the President's fetish for tariffs and superficial thinking on trade deficits, the President has imposed a trade policy that makes the global baseline of 10% with countries that have trade surpluses like Singapore, Australia, Netherlands, countries that we have three trade agreements are getting tariffs at 10%.

(03:11:25)
Countries that are free trade countries are getting tariffed at 10%. It does make no sense. It makes no sense of exactly what the President wants to fix or how he's going about these tariffs. Now, it's really contradictory based on the lack of clear messaging out of your administration. If other countries eliminate their tariffs and we eliminate ours, that's just deal making and we don't raise revenue and businesses don't relocate to the US. If it's a permanent revenue source and you want to relocate to the US, then going to have these tariffs permanently and there are not going to be any deals so what is clear is that you can't have it both ways. Additionally, tariffs undermine our national security as we're seeing in the Indo-Pacific region. Look, I know the President wants to bring back the Rust Belt. I get that, but a big part of that is political.

(03:12:15)
It's nostalgia. And nostalgia, as they say, is the rust of memory. We are not victims here. Our economy is the envy of the world, partly because it was our choice to invest in other countries over saving. It was our choice to have bilateral trade deficits. This is not some unexpected crisis here. This is no extraordinary or unusual threat. This is because we chose to invest in other countries where labor is cheaper and therefore products are cheaper. And as we know, it's okay for working families to want to pay low prices for products in this country. I know that the President is saying we're getting screwed. But the fact is that Trump is screwing us with these incoherent, inchoate tariffs that in the short term and in the long term domestically and internationally and for our economy and for our national security, they are making us weaker. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. Feenstra (03:13:01):

I now recognize Ms. Van Duyne from Texas for five minutes.

Ms. Van Duyne (03:13:06):

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Greer. I'm sure it's been a long afternoon for you, but thank you for sitting it out. I want to thank you for being here today and for your engagement thus far on trade matters that are very important to all of us. Quite the contrast from your predecessor. I know that we've heard that the trade deficit according to the President isn't fair, but it's fact is it not, that we are experiencing $1. 3 trillion deficit in trade, that Americans pay out over $360 billion last year in tariffs, and yet the US collects less than $80 billion? I would say that that's fact. That's not just what the President thinks, it's fact. And let me be absolutely clear, President Trump's tariff policy is not a fetish. It's results driven. For decades, we let our trading partners take advantage of us. China flooded our markets with subsidized steel.

(03:13:58)
India slapped double-digit tariffs on US goods and the EU buried our industries in red tape. And meanwhile, Washington shrugged. But thanks to this administration's unapologetic use of tariffs, countries like Israel, India, Vietnam, Mexico, and the European Union are back at the table and they're engaging because they know the United States is now finally serious. And when I hear Democrats criticize tariffs as some kind of economic sin, I have to ask, what's their alternative, appeasement? President Trump's approach isn't theoretical. It is producing concrete results, as we have seen in the last few weeks. Results that the last administration only talked about, tariffs are working and not because we like them but because we need them. They're leverage and now they're actually making deals from a position of strength. I think that is very important. In North Texas, look, I've seen firsthand the value of trade that is fair, reciprocal and firmly rooted in America's strategic interests.

(03:15:02)
These are principles that are championed by you and President Trump. And I also understand something too many in this town seem to forget is that trade without enforcement is surrender. And under the previous administration, enforcement was weak, inconsistent at best. Mexico violated its obligations under the 1944 Water Treaty and they violated the USMCA with impunity and American businesses were the ones that had to pay. We saw it firsthand with the case of Vulcan Materials, a company that operated lawfully in Mexico for decades, but then had their property invaded, shut down and seized by Mexican armed forces. As we approach the USMCA review, can I ask how the administration is planning to protect these American business interests and ensure that Mexico complies with its obligations?

Mr. Greer (03:15:50):

Yes, certainly. And thank you for your comments. What we see is that Mexico, despite their obligations under the USMCA, continues to discriminate against US companies and US products. We've seen this particularly in the energy sector, for example, where they have favored state-owned industries over American industries which are cleaner and efficient. You mentioned the situation with Vulcan, that's something where we're paying attention. Mexico, we won a case against them about how they treat our corn and they have a little constitutional amendment they're doing, we're watching that very closely to make sure they don't hit that. So there are a variety of unfair trading practices that Mexico has or threatens to have where we're watching that very closely and we expect any renegotiation or review of USMCA to focus on those types of issues.

Ms. Van Duyne (03:16:40):

Excellent. Thank you. And while the tariffs are seeming to make progress in the right direction, I'm still really concerned with China's third country subsidies and their trans-shipment to the steel and aluminum industries specifically in my district that is very important, which have enacted and enabled them to evade our duties and our tariffs. Can you comment on the specific actions that we can expect to see from this administration in terms of cracking down on trans-shipment and duty evasion through third country circumvention?

Mr. Greer (03:17:07):

Certainly, and this is, for example, you mentioned steel and aluminum. The President recently tightened exclusions and exemptions under steel and aluminum because of those types of issues. I think that we need to pay attention to whether goods coming in from Mexico and Canada, for example, whether they contain a lot of Chinese content. Some of this is Customs and Border Protection needs to do more enforcement. I know that they're focused on this, but I think that we need to make sure where we have trade agreements, that the benefits of the agreement are going first to Americans and then of course to trading partners who follow the rules. And we have to have enforcement and enforcement means tariffs. People say they want enforcement, but in the trade space, enforcement means tariffs. So we're going that direction too.

Ms. Van Duyne (03:17:50):

I'm concerned that our current trade remedy laws will not suffice, which is why I'm leading the Level the Playing Field 2.0 with Ms. Sewell, do you agree it's time for Congress to update trade remedy laws?

Mr. Greer (03:17:59):

Oh, I certainly agree with that, yes.

Ms. Van Duyne (03:18:00):

Awesome. All right, Ambassador, we're at a pivotal moment. We finally have a trade policy that doesn't just talk about fairness, but it actually demands it. The Trump administration has sent a clear message, the era of taking advantage of the United States is over. Thank you again for your testimony and leadership and I yield back.

Mr. Greer (03:18:16):

Thank you.

Mr. Feenstra (03:18:17):

Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes and I just want to say thank you, Ambassador Greer for taking the time to speak with us today. It's great to hear a voice of reason. I want to first thank you for including Germany's withholding tax on IP, on USTR's list of investment barriers in the national trade estimate. And I look forward to working with you on this and ensuring fair treatment of American businesses across the world. I saw the list and that was one of them, section 49, so thank you very much. I am from a district, the second largest ag district in the country.

(03:18:54)
Number one in cattle, hogs, corn, soybeans and so forth. 20% of our ag production in the United States goes to the export market. So my hope is to see tariffs imposed last week quickly lead to fair and reciprocal market access and to end many of the longstanding agricultural trade barriers around the world. That is really my hope. So if I may ask you, it's a really interesting time. We have 70 countries that President Trump said last night, 70 countries that want to negotiate, which is incredible. Can you talk to me, do you have the staff and resources to manage all these negotiations at this time and how can we help?

Mr. Greer (03:19:39):

Thank you. I, of course, could always use more staff. We had some folks leave USTR, career folks leave during the last administration. We have my deputies who are currently going through the confirmation process, but we have a strong staff. We have most of our political appointees in, we have career veteran USTR folks who know these issues who have been there for many years. I know them from the last time I was there. I work very closely with them. This is a situation where we have embraced the agency and these folks are truly at the tip of the spear. They're the ones who helped put together this book with all the non-tariff trade barriers that we're putting together. So they know their brief, they know what they're doing, and when the countries come in, there's not a lot of extra homework that needs to be done because we know exactly the barriers we're targeting. So we're doing our best with what we have. I always welcome more staff, of course.

Mr. Feenstra (03:20:30):

That's great to hear. So there's two types when it comes to trade. Obviously there's the barriers of concerns, but also there's the opportunity. I think about agriculture that we can expand our markets to the UK, to India, to Kenya. There's so many areas that we can expand. Can you just touch on that, on we're negotiating with 70 countries, but then we're also want to expand these markets, these other markets, can you just briefly talk on how we can create expansion for agricultural community?

Mr. Greer (03:20:58):

Certainly. Again, the foundation of the President's action is to achieve reciprocity because we think the lack of reciprocity, we know the lack of reciprocity is a driver of this trade deficit that's left us in such a challenging situation. And so as you're seeking reciprocity, and again, we have countries coming and saying "We're interested in reciprocity", part of that is making sure that they're treating us as we treat them. That means that they have to lower their tariffs, they lower their non-tariff barriers, and that's where you get the market access. That's where you get expanded markets. That's where our ag and other producers have the chance to really get their foot in the door instead of little bits and pieces here and there or an uncertain access, you get real access, you get reliable access, something that our farmers can count on.

Mr. Feenstra (03:21:40):

So just to clarify that, so I can tell my farmers, by the end of the day after this is all settled, we should have dramatically expanded markets for them. Would that be a fair statement?

Mr. Greer (03:21:50):

I think that's the expectation. That's the expectation. We certainly want to… Listen, with some countries it's easier, they have fewer barriers. With others, it's harder and it's going to take some time, and in the meantime they'll have that tariff. But my hope is that we can have a lot of these countries have reciprocal trade with us and we can be more competitive whether we're farmers or manufacturers or producers. If we have real access to these other markets, we'd be more competitive here and produce here.

Mr. Feenstra (03:22:17):

Yep. I want to thank you for your response to my letter to the USTR's proposed measure on Chinese built marine vessels and for discussing it with me last week. The proposal of the USTR to counter China's shipbuilding industry would significantly increase freight costs on US soybeans and soy products, in turn, making the price of US soybean products un-competitive versus other countries. I'm hearing from my constituents that global soybean orders are simply being canceled and grain shippers cannot secure freight past May due to this uncertainty. I just wanted to hear from you again, so what can I tell my soybean producers, I'm the largest in the country to give them some peace in this matter and what's happening?

Mr. Greer (03:23:01):

Well, first of all, we should have final decision on that by the middle of this month. Second of all, there were a lot of proposed measures in that section 301 action on shipbuilding. I think that, and this could have been a communications issue, I think some people thought that all of those measures would be imposed. Those were proposed measures for people to comment on and receive feedback. We've now had that process where we've had the feedback and now we consider which of those measures is most appropriate.

Mr. Feenstra (03:23:28):

Thank you very much. I now yield myself back. Now I recognize Mr. Gomez from California for five minutes.

Mr. Gomez (03:23:36):

Thank you so much. I want to just get to the point. I want to start off by making sure we're speaking the same language, Mr. Ambassador, do you agree that tariffs are tax, yes or no?

Mr. Greer (03:23:46):

They're a tax on foreign goods.

Mr. Gomez (03:23:47):

Okay, so I'm glad to hear you say that because also economists say that 98% of that tax is passed on to the American consumer, right? 98 to 99% is passed on to the American consumer in

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:24:00):

… higher prices. And it's going to fall disproportionately, especially on working Americans. So higher costs when it comes to food, 40% of our produce are produced out of the country. Cars, clothes, shoes, household goods, all of it. And yesterday you said, "There'll be some short-term pain." I want to know, and I think my constituents want to know, how long is short-term pain going to last? Is it 24 months?

Mr. Greer (03:24:33):

I don't think it's 24 months, no

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:24:35):

Two years?

Mr. Greer (03:24:36):

I don't think it's two years.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:24:38):

The reason why… Is it three years? Is it a month? Because here's the thing, you also said yesterday, the other thing you did say yesterday, you said, "The trade grew over 30 years, it didn't happen overnight. So this problem's not going to be solved overnight." So you're saying on one hand it's not going to be solved overnight, but then the long-term pain, it's going to be short-term pain, that doesn't compute. People don't believe it. And here's the thing, just yesterday it was said that it was going to be a $3,800 a year increase falling on working families and the cost of higher prices, it increased to $4,600. We had to actually cross that out because we made this board yesterday. What is the tax increase going to be tomorrow? Is it going to be 5,200? And the reason why is that we have different definitions of short-term pain. What was your last… before being confirm at USTR, where did you work?

Mr. Greer (03:25:42):

I worked at King & Spalding.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:25:44):

King, & Spalding. How much does a partner make at King & Spalding?

Mr. Greer (03:25:48):

Well, it depends on a lot of different factors. But it makes [inaudible 03:25:51]-

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:25:51):

So I can pull up your financial disclosure, I don't have it in front of me, but one of the things that we are shown, it's about $1.5 million. My constituents don't make that. The average American consumer doesn't make that. The way we do it is every single month we look at our budgets and see how much we spent and then actually have to decide what do we have to pull back on? So here's the thing-

Mr. Greer (03:26:13):

I grew up in a mobile home, working several jobs. I know what it means, Congressman. In a mobile home, that's where I grew up.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:26:20):

You also have a cabinet of billionaires. You have Lutnick, you have Bessent, you have the president himself, you have Elon Musk. I mean, Donald Trump who has billions. So for them, $4,600 doesn't mean anything, but for the average worker it does. So this is where I say it… You guys are out of touch when it comes to things. And I recognize you're working a lot of different jobs, so I'm going to move on to ask a question. In you're a testimony, you said, "Ms. Sanchez said," you said, "You are the acting head of Special Counsel." Aren't you also the acting head of the Office of Government Ethics?

Mr. Greer (03:26:56):

I was recently assigned to that position. Yes, Mr. Gomez.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:26:59):

Correct. So let me get this straight, you are the Chief USTR representative, the active chief of ethics. You're also the chief whistleblower and now you're leading negotiations of 70 countries. So where's your priority, those other jobs or is it the trade agenda?

Mr. Greer (03:27:16):

Well, my first job is USTR and we have staff at the other agencies to help execute that.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:27:17):

The reason why… It doesn't seem right, here's why, because I've learned over the years if you want to make somebody feel special, you give them more titles because in the end, who did Donald Trump said was actually running the trade agenda?

Mr. Greer (03:27:33):

Well, the problem-

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:27:34):

Commerce Secretary Lutnick, that's who he said. Here's another question, are you using Signal to communicate with the executive branch? Yes or no?

Mr. Greer (03:27:44):

We do some logistics from time to time.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:27:46):

Okay, make sure as required by the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Acts that you're submitting those for posterity.

Mr. Greer (03:27:55):

I will talk to our general counsel to see what's required by law.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:27:58):

Also, do you still stand by the formula that was used to assign the tariffs?

Mr. Greer (03:28:02):

Oh, yeah, the White House economists? Yeah, it's driven by the deficit.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:28:04):

Okay, the reason why is that conservative economists have said that this formula was actually, there's miscalculations in the formula, that some people are even saying that Chat GPT was used to come up the formula.

Mr. Greer (03:28:18):

Oh, well, that's not true at all. It's completely false.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:28:19):

So here's the reason-

Mr. Greer (03:28:21):

It's completely false that Chat GPT was used, that's a lie.

US Representative Jimmy Gomez (03:28:22):

The reason why is nobody has confidence in what you're doing. Basically, you guys are saying, trust us, trust that it's going to be short-term pain. But here's what we see, we see a plan that doesn't make any sense, a formula that has flaws in it that people have torn apart, that you see the price increase and the stock market crashing and red lights blinking on a recession. And then you impose tariffs on the island that is inhabited by penguins. So the consumer confidence is plummeting and it's going down, down, down. And you guys are saying, "Trust us," that the Republicans, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and you guys know what you're doing. So that doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't make any sense. We worked on other issues before and I hope we can work on other issues moving forward, but you guys need to be straight on who's running the show because this is going to fall and hurt the American worker. With that, I yield back.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:29:19):

Ms. Malliotakis.

US Representative Nicole Malliotakis (03:29:21):

Thank you, Ambassador. I very much appreciate your testimony here today. And I understand the President's goal of wanting to reduce unfair tariffs that are placed in the United States, that he wants to level the playing field, that he wants to reduce the trade deficit, that he wants to remove barriers to entry and he wants to reshore manufacturing. I think we need to be cautious. I get concerned about doing too much at one time, about biting off more than we can chew. To date though we have seen trillions of dollars in new private investment since the president has taken office. Domestic and foreign companies are expanding or opening new facilities here in the United States. And as you mentioned in your testimony, there's over 50 countries that are coming to the table because they want to make deals.

(03:30:06)
I just want to bring up some of the concerns I've heard from manufacturers, importers from New York that I've spoken to, and they want to make sure that you're considering the impact that tariffs could have on materials, on parts, on supplies that are needed to manufacture here in the United States, because obviously the goal is to bring those jobs home to reassure as much as possible, but if there's tariffs on plastics, lumber, metals, it obviously makes it very difficult to manufacture here at home.

(03:30:33)
And also some of these importers that I've been speaking with have invested a lot of money to divest out of China and move into other friendlier nations, Cambodia, for example, Vietnam. And they're concerned that they cross the across-the-board tariffs in Asia are impacting their supply chain and ultimately their businesses and that they're hopeful that deals will come forward very quickly. But they've made it also very clear that they can't wait 90 days for a deal to be made and that it would literally close their business. And so I just want to hear from you on where you think you're making inroads there, on making deals with some of these countries to avoid that type of scenario. And if you could just answer those two, comment on those two points first.

Mr. Greer (03:31:19):

Certainly, I'm happy to do that. And again, just to reiterate, we've had this enormous trade deficit that developed under President Biden. These things are supposed to be self-correcting under normal economic theory, when they're not, it shows that there's something structural at risk here. That's what's being addressed.

(03:31:37)
We now have so many countries saying, "We're not going to retaliate against you. We're going to work with you. We're going to try to figure out a way forward," that the president is looking forward to trying to find a way forward to make deals with these folks. China is on its own path. It's chosen retaliation for many years. It's chosen uncertainty and I won't comment much further on the US- China relationship, but I think what you're talking about, Congresswoman, with respect to these other countries, I think we could count on having some deals with them within the next few weeks or months.

US Representative Nicole Malliotakis (03:32:09):

Yeah, I hope it's more the few weeks, because I think again, too many months may hurt the ability for these companies to survive there. At least if you're able to do some business in Vietnam or Cambodia, you don't have to rely on communist China, which are already starting to move out, but I feel like that's a real issue. Because even if we want to bring the supply chain home, this brings me to my second point about pharmaceuticals. We've all said it here today, the four years that Joe Biden was there he did nothing to reduce our dependency on communist China for our medical supply. In fact, from 2020 last year we saw $213 billion worth of medicine imported from China, that's a two and a half-time increase in the decade before. So we are relying more today post-COVID on Communist China for our pharmaceuticals, and that is a very dangerous thing.

(03:33:02)
But my question is with your goal of trying to bring facilities back home, I mean it does take about seven years to get one of these manufacturing plants up and running. How do you close the gap? If the president's going to do tariffs on pharmaceuticals, which I would really caution against that, but if that is the goal to try to get them to come back home, we know it takes about seven years for those plants to get up and running. How are we going to close that gap so we're not hurting ourselves in the process, but we are doing what we need to do, which is bring that supply chain home?

Mr. Greer (03:33:34):

Well, I think there's a role for Congress in bringing home the supply chains. The president can act with the authorities he's been given and we found that a tariff, in the first term we found a tariff is a way to become less dependent on China, for example. We know it works. It's just math. The data's there. That's how it is, to the extent that Congress is interested in helping reshore and creating tax structures that incentivize manufacturing. I think that's just really important. I think we have to have that.

US Representative Nicole Malliotakis (03:33:59):

And I'm glad you mentioned that because I actually have legislation to do just that, to incentivize our sensitive supply chain, particularly pharmaceuticals back here and also to utilize Puerto Rico, which has had historically the infrastructure to do it, and I agree with my friend Dr. Murphy who pointed that out earlier, and I have two pieces of legislation that I hope the committee will take up or perhaps we'll put a piece in the tax package. But I do look forward to working with you. I think it does take more than that. We also have to reduce some of the regulatory framework and some of the permitting process that takes too long. But we can get there, but we need to make sure we don't hurt ourselves in the interim. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:34:36):

Mr. Carey.

US Representative Mike Carey (03:34:38):

Mr. Ambassador, a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you for your testimony. I also want to compliment you. I think anybody that has had a successful career on the private sector who's willing to come back into the public sector says a lot about the character of the person. So I appreciate your service to the country, sir.

(03:34:58)
I was pleased to see the administration's decision to exclude oil and natural gas from these new reciprocal tariffs on countries with unfair trade practices. As we all know, one of the administration's top priorities is increasing US oil and gas production, which is a shared goal of mine. As many of Ohio's one of the largest coal-producing states east of the Mississippi River. But in order to accomplish this, the energy industry will need access to key materials and inputs to bring these projects online and help keep the US as the top supplier of energy resources.

(03:35:41)
Many of these products, including specialized steel, are not currently produced in the United States, it's just a matter of fact. These products are designed to handle unique operating environments like higher pressures and temperatures needed for energy production. Many of these specialized products, there really is no domestic option. There isn't. So can you share how USTR is considering treatment for these types of key end of use materials like specialty steel in regard to the tariffs, especially considering that many of these products cannot be sourced in the US and are essential to help deliver the administration's energy agenda?

Mr. Greer (03:36:27):

So Congressman, the specialty steel you're talking about is not covered by the reciprocal tariff, the Commerce Department using Section 232 action, they oversee any tariffs on steel and aluminum, and so I am not trying to pass the buck, but they're much better placed to talk about how that's being implemented.

US Representative Mike Carey (03:36:47):

I just want to identify this is something that is very concerning to a lot of people. So we'll follow up with your team and we'll follow up the right people. The other thing, I do want to… Bless you. Bless you.

Female (03:36:57):

Sorry, that was very loud. Sorry.

Male (03:36:58):

Bless you.

US Representative Mike Carey (03:37:00):

I yield back the balance of my time, no.

Female (03:37:02):

It was very loud.

US Representative Mike Carey (03:37:02):

Ambassador, I also want to echo Congressman Feenstra's comments about the Chinese flagged vessels that are going into certain ports, that's a very big issue for a lot of commodities. I don't care whether it's corn or coal or soybeans, whatever it is. So I appreciated your remarks on that, but it's something that we will definitely follow up with you on. One of the things, President Trump unleashed the American LNG industry by ending the former administration's era permitting pause. And as you know, the US LNG industry is already being targeted by nations that are subject to the president's new tariffs. So my question to you is, do you have any plans to prioritize America's newly restored LNG export capacity in conversations with foreign nations?

Mr. Greer (03:37:54):

That's something that comes up regularly. Obviously we've been talking about the trade deficit and many countries have been quick to say… One area where the US is very competitive is oil and LNG and it's something that they want to buy, and so it's been very common in these conversations for them to suggest that that is one way to help achieve more trade balance, et cetera.

US Representative Mike Carey (03:38:15):

And I appreciate your answer. And lastly, I'd like to briefly touch on the USMCA sunset review, if you don't mind. The USMCA qualifying trade was excluded from the tariffs announced on April 2nd, and this will help many of the US manufacturers, the reason I wasn't in the room most of the days they were in my office, that have made investments under the rules. President Trump negotiated five years ago, The USMCA is facing a sunset review process that needs to be completed by the end of July of 2026. Will the tariff exclusion continue to the lead up of that review to give the manufacturers more certainty in the upcoming months?

Mr. Greer (03:38:54):

Well, that's the current status. I don't want to get ahead of the president on how he wants to treat that, but that's certainly the current status. And I would expect that if Canada, Mexico continue on this path, that would continue to be the status.

US Representative Mike Carey (03:39:05):

And again, I want to compliment you for your service to the country and being willing to go back into the public sector. A lot of people don't realize you're giving up on a lot, you're spending a lot more time, probably a lot more hours, a lot more time away from your family. And so I just want you to know as a member of this committee, I certainly appreciate your service. So with that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:39:25):

Mr. Horsford.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:39:27):

Thank you, Chairman Smith and to the ranking member. Mr. Trade Representative, are you aware that the terrorists have been paused?

Mr. Greer (03:39:37):

I am. Yes.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:39:39):

When were you made aware of that?

Mr. Greer (03:39:40):

Well, I understood the decision was made a few minutes ago-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:39:43):

It's sitting here-

Mr. Greer (03:39:44):

And under discussion.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:39:45):

It's sitting here. Under discussion, so did you know that this was under discussion and why did you not include that as part of your opening remarks?

Mr. Greer (03:39:52):

So typically what I don't do is divulge the contents of my discussions with the president [inaudible 03:39:57]-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:39:56):

What are the details of the pause?

Mr. Greer (03:39:59):

Well, my understanding is that because so many countries have decided not to retaliate, we're going to have about 90 days.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:40:07):

Excuse me? China increased their tariffs on the United States. Trump blinked.

Mr. Greer (03:40:17):

What's the blink, sir?

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:40:19):

What do you know about this pause? What are the details of it?

Mr. Greer (03:40:23):

Well, the details as I understand it, is that China continues to retaliate, other countries didn't retaliate. The president two or three days ago said we wanted to negotiate with those countries that asked for meetings, that's what we're doing. We've had discussions-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:40:35):

What are the details. How long is the pause? How many days? How many weeks?

Mr. Greer (03:40:39):

I understand it's 90 days. I haven't spoken to the president since I've been here-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:40:43):

The trade representative hasn't spoken to the President of the United States about a global reordering of trade?

Mr. Greer (03:40:52):

Yes, I have, I've just been in the hearing with you, sir.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:40:54):

But yet he announced it on a Tweet. WTF, who's in charge?

Mr. Greer (03:40:59):

The President of the United States is in charge, he was elected.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:41:01):

And what do you know about those details?

Mr. Greer (03:41:05):

Well, as I mentioned-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:41:06):

It looks like your boss just pulled the rug out from under you and paused the tariffs, the taxes on the American people. There's no strategy. You just found out three seconds ago sitting here, we saw you.

Mr. Greer (03:41:19):

We've been discussing a variety of [inaudible 03:41:22]-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:41:22):

If you came here knowing that you were going to be turned off, that these tariffs were going to be turned off, why didn't you include that in your opening statement? Why didn't you reference that as part of your testimony?

Mr. Greer (03:41:34):

Well, I don't disclose my conversations with the president, sir.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:41:37):

These were specific questions. We asked you all along, what's the strategy? These are real consequences for the American people and small businesses. I had a group of small businesses in my office earlier today talking about the impacts of these tariffs on aluminum and steel. This is amateur hour and it needs to stop. What does this even mean for your negotiating strategy? How are you in charge of negotiation if the president is tweeting about this from wherever the hell he is?

Mr. Greer (03:42:13):

The president was elected and he runs the trade policy and I advise him and execute his trade policy.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:42:17):

Who executes the trade policy?

Mr. Greer (03:42:18):

I execute the trade policy. The president-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:42:19):

Did you know that this was happening?

Mr. Greer (03:42:22):

We have been discussing all kinds of policy options [inaudible 03:42:24]-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:42:23):

And there's another member of the cabinet, Bessent, who just canceled coming to the Hill to avoid talking about the market because it's in turmoil. This in just days, because there was no strategy, there was no plan. The president chose to take actions that he didn't even have the authority to take. He's put our economy in disarray and near collapse. We have small businesses and Americans who are concerned about their well-being, people's retirement, people's 529 accounts went down because of this administration. We have people that are planning to send their kids to college this fall. People who are retiring whose benefits have declined. Is this market manipulation?

Mr. Greer (03:43:23):

No.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:43:24):

Why not? If it was a plan, if it was always the plan, how is this not market manipulation?

Mr. Greer (03:43:31):

It's not market manipulation, sir.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:43:33):

Well then what is it? Because it sure is not a strategy.

Mr. Greer (03:43:36):

We're trying to reset the global trade system that has off-shored all of our factories and off-shored all of our [inaudible 03:43:41]-

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:43:41):

And what has that done? How have you achieved any of that? But to enact enormous harm on the American people, which was our concern from the very beginning. Tariffs are a tool. It can be used in the appropriate way to protect US jobs and small businesses, but that's not what this does.

(03:44:05)
So if it's not market manipulation, what is it? Who's benefiting? What billionaire just got richer? And all the while there are not even any Republicans left in this hearing. They all left because they don't even want to defend this. But meanwhile, the Speaker is rushing to the floor to pass a budget reconciliation to screw America by passing the biggest tax cut in history on the backs of the American people. WTF. Who's in charge? Because it sure doesn't look like it's the trade representative. You just got the rug pulled out from under you. I wish I could feel some empathy, but the empathy I have is for the American people whose very well-being and livelihoods are being affected. This is not a game. This is real life. I yield back.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:45:07):

Let the record reflect that there's more Republicans in this chamber than there are Democrats currently in this committee room. There's six of us, there's five of you. So let's make sure we get the facts right. I appreciate the president did not blink on China, as was said earlier, and it needs to be corrected in the record. In fact, he increased China by 125%. Mr. Yakym.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:45:34):

Would you yield, Mr. Chairman? Would you yield?

US Representative Jason Smith (03:45:35):

I do not.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:45:36):

Can we have a colloquy?

US Representative Jason Smith (03:45:37):

No.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:45:37):

We don't want to talk about the trade policy here in the Trade Committee. This is our jurisdiction.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:45:42):

Your time has expired and I'm more than happy to talk to you.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:45:44):

I asked if you would yield?

US Representative Jason Smith (03:45:45):

And I said no.

US Representative Steven Horsford (03:45:46):

Because you don't want to defend the policy or the strategy. Kick me out. What are you you going to do? Kick me out of here.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:45:52):

Mr. Yakym, you're recognized.

US Representative Rudy Yakym (03:45:54):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Greer, it's good to see you today. As we discussed in the past, Indiana's Second District has the type of production economy that he would like to make for the entire country. We manufacture 85% of the nation's RVs, 60% of artificial knees and hips, as well as boats, trailers, buses, auto parts, Humvees, you name it. We also have a ton of ag in my district. Corn, soybeans, eggs, dairy, ducks, beef, pork, lumber, potatoes and tomatoes. I could go on. Lumber alone, I was actually just meeting with a cabinet manufacturer here a few minutes ago. I couldn't even remember if I had been to that cabinet manufacturer's site because we have so many of them in my district. I don't know how we do all that in one area, but somehow we do.

(03:46:50)
All this to say, supply chains matter, both getting inputs in the door and outputs out to market. Small hang-ups can create expensive backups. A drip-drip of price hikes can turn into a stream and that stream can turn into a river for something with thousands of components. I hope we can get some good deals quickly. It probably won't come as a surprise to you Mr. Ambassador when I tell you that when an RV or boat is exported, it tends to not go very far. In fact, 90% of RV exports are to Canada. However, Canadian retaliation tariffs against RVs began today and boats are on the bubble. Are you consulting with industries and companies being targeted by these retaliatory tariffs?

Mr. Greer (03:47:39):

So Congressman in many cases, yes. I understand that the retaliatory tariffs by Canada are related to the steel and aluminum tariffs, and so that would be the Commerce Department, but we certainly… We meet with all these folks, whether it's covered by the Commerce Department or someone else, they want a meeting, we take it, we listen and we provide the feedback that's necessary and obviously we're talking to all these countries to get to a position where we have better terms of trade with them, where we can ensure that we have domestic steel and aluminum manufacturing and the other critical sectors that are so important to our economy.

US Representative Rudy Yakym (03:48:14):

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I also want to get your thoughts on a recent New York Times article titled, The Tsunami is Coming. China's global exports are just getting started. It reports that Chinese state-controlled banks lent an extra $1.9 trillion to industrial borrowers over the last four years, but all those factories aren't just churning out the gizmos and gadgets destined for their domestic consumption. China's promised shift to a consumption economy remains just that, a promise. Increased production paired with low consumption just means that China continues to double down on over capacity.

(03:48:53)
And these numbers bear that out. Exports rose 13% in 2023 and 17% in 2024. It seems like there's a global recognition that the threat posed by China's over capacity is real. The EU, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand and others have also imposed tariffs on China to counter the flood of cheap exports. It's not just us. Reports suggest that Canada and Mexico are open to coordinating with the United States on China's over capacity. Are you able to comment Mr. Ambassador on reports that Canada and Mexico are open to coordination on Chinese overcapacity and if they were to coordinate with us, would that potentially create an off-ramp for Canada and Mexico on the US tariffs?

Mr. Greer (03:49:47):

In the first instance, I appreciate you highlighting that. And overcapacity in China, it infects the whole world. It can displace products in third countries that come to us indirectly, and that's often why we do a global tariff action because the Chinese actions are not just bilateral, they cause a problem for the whole economy and so we have to take global actions to make sure there aren't loopholes or Swiss cheese. With respect to Canada and Mexico, I won't get into the details of our negotiations with them. I'll defer to their public statements, but from my part, I would say we have encouraged, we being American policymakers, we have encouraged for years our close trading partners to take stronger action against China, the types of actions that we are taking.

US Representative Rudy Yakym (03:50:29):

What about other countries and allies? Do you think there's room for them to coordinate with us on some of these tariffs as it relates to China?

Mr. Greer (03:50:34):

So I think there's room for that. Some of these economies are closer geopolitically and economically to China and it makes it a harder choice for them, Southeast Asia, that kind of thing. But in my own view, it's in these countries' own interest to frankly manage their trade with China so that they don't become victims of a second China shock.

US Representative Rudy Yakym (03:50:53):

Great. Thank you Mr. Ambassador for being here today. I'd also like to thank you for your patience that you've certainly shown with us today. And with that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:51:02):

Thank you. Mr. Miller.

US Representative Max Miller (03:51:08):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, it's good to see you in a different capacity.

Mr. Greer (03:51:11):

Good to see you as well.

US Representative Max Miller (03:51:12):

I remember last time we were together in the last administration, I was seeing you for a visit, but it's good to see you and welcome. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Ambassador Greer for your time and testimony today. From day one, this administration made it clear through his America First economic agenda that the United States will no longer tolerate unfair trade practices or accept the chronic trade deficits that have hurt American workers and industries for far too long. The farmers and manufacturers I represent depend on strong enforceable trade agreements that ensure their crops and products can complete and thrive in global markets. They're not asking for special treatment, only a level playing field.

(03:51:49)
As you noted in your testimony, under the Biden administration, we saw consecutive years of agricultural trade deficits, a deeply concerning trend that reflects a broader lack of urgency to fight for American farmers, empower our workers and focus on advancing US economic interests abroad.

(03:52:07)
Additionally, the prior US trade representatives retreat from efforts to negotiate critical market access from the American leadership in digital trade has created a dangerous vacuum, one that China and other adversaries are incredibly eager to fill. Without a clear assertive economic strategy, we risk losing ground not just in agriculture or manufacturing, but also in innovation, technology and long-term economic security. Now is the time to advance a bold pro-growth trade policy that restores American leadership, defends our producers and sets the terms of tomorrow's economy.

(03:52:44)
Ambassador Greer, as you know, there are certain goods critical to supporting the United States manufacturers and consumers that are either not readily available in sufficient capacity or cannot be produced at all domestically due to geographic and climate limitations. Coffee and cacao are clear examples where small-scale production exists in places like Puerto Rico and Hawaii. However, this production comes nowhere near meeting domestic demand within our country. Given their importance to both consumers and domestic food manufacturers, could you please speak to how the administration is working with industry stakeholders and international trading partners to maintain secure, reliable access to these essential imports?

Mr. Greer (03:53:24):

Certainly. First of all, I appreciate your comments and pointing out this because the global economy is complex. Among some of the countries that I have coming in to speak, I'm meeting, for example with Madagascar within the next day or two, and as has been mentioned here, vanilla is sourced from Madagascar, among other things. So we're certainly engaging in conversations with those countries, including those who have some of those things that cannot necessarily be grown here. So that's certainly part of it. We're sensitive to those needs. And again, I've mentioned this before, with respect to US, Canada and Mexico, where we have a lot of components and parts that may come across that's currently not subject to a duty if they comply with the rules.

US Representative Max Miller (03:54:04):

Thank you very much, Ambassador. In your comments yesterday to my colleagues in the Senate, you mentioned that roughly 50 countries have reached out in recent days to negotiate with this administration following last week's trade action. I'm particularly interested in the engagement with countries of the Indo-Pacific and Africa where many American businesses compete with companies subsidized by the Chinese Communist Party. Among the countries that have reached out, how's the administration considering these unique challenges while ensuring critical market access for advancing US and strategic interests?

Mr. Greer (03:54:37):

So for example, you mentioned Southeast Asia. Some of the things we've seen… We've seen Cambodia and Vietnam for example, come forward and say that they want to engage in reciprocal trade. They've made certain proposals on lowering tariff levels. I think that it can be challenging because they do have Chinese businesses operating there too. So I think if you're going to get to a situation where you're having to deal with some of these folks, one, you want to make sure it's real market access they're giving you, not just tariff levels, but also the non-tariff barriers. And you also want to make sure you're not giving a benefit to Chinese companies operating in those countries. We don't want some deal with them only to have it become Chinese companies pushing product to the United States through Vietnam or Cambodia, so that's something we're looking at in terms of rules of origin, et cetera.

US Representative Max Miller (03:55:23):

Well, thank you very much for your attention to detail on this matter. It's big in our district, and so that's why I bring it up. And thank you for your answer. And if I may, and it's a little bit of a tough one, but on what timeline do you expect these negotiations to move? And the outcomes, what should we be watching for, trade commitments from our partners across the globe?

Mr. Greer (03:55:42):

Certainly, well before the action even went into place, trading partners knew action was coming. They heard the president as everyone had and so they came in advance to talk about possibilities where they could have more reciprocal trade with us. This afternoon, I have additional meetings. I'm working with other members of the Cabinet to make sure we can work with these folks, understand where they're coming down, what their offers might be, and this is job one for the next few weeks and months.

US Representative Max Miller (03:56:10):

Well, Ambassador, I just want to thank you very much for your hard work, your dedication to this country and the service that you're doing as ambassador. And just checking here, seeing as some of the tariffs that the president is doing have already adjusted a bit, the market's up 2,300, so I know it's in the beginning of the administration, but I feel very confident about your direction and leadership moving through with these negotiations. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. Greer (03:56:33):

Thank you.

US Representative Jason Smith (03:56:34):

Ms. Plaskett.

US Representative Stacey Plaskett (03:56:37):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. Ambassador. Good afternoon. I had quite a number of questions about tariffs, but since that's on pause, I'm going to pause on those questions and deal with one that is more specific to my district and one that I'm concerned with, and that's regarding a proposed rule that you have that has been put out. And I know that there have been testimony about it in the US Virgin Islands and throughout the Caribbean, as well as some of the other territories, in Hawaii.

(03:57:10)
We import virtually everything needed for daily life from food products, poultry, groceries, vehicles, et cetera. 97% of the food that's consumed in my district comes from imported goods. I'm deeply concerned about the impact of trade actions, particularly because it seems very apparent that I don't know if the American Territories have been thoroughly thought through, and the impact this will have on us in some of these tariffs as well as some of the proposed rules. Proposed action taken under the Office of the US Trade Representative, Section 301 Authority right now does not provide a balanced solution, particularly when it comes to American businesses and jobs in the shipbuilding capacity. We know that you've

US Representative Stacey Plaskett (03:58:00):

… You've proposed the rule to impose fees on those ships that are Chinese made, that are not American made. However, a large portion of ships, which are much smaller than those that are made in American ports, the American ports are predominantly making those for the military purposes. It's cost-effective for them to do it for the military, but not for those kinds of cargo shipping that's done in the Caribbean region. It doesn't provide a balance for us, and we are concerned not only in the Virgin Islands but Puerto Rico as well as the other Caribbean islands, that this imposition of a million dollars per port that is being proposed will bear incredible impact on us.

(03:58:47)
US shipping industry serving the Caribbean cannot absorb additional costs of the proposed port fees, which would have a significant economic consequence to us. The medium family income in the Virgin Islands is $30,000 a year. The cost of a million dollars per port is going to be passed on to the consumers in my district, to the business owners. We are about to start a rebuilding of 20 schools, two hospitals, a complete micro grid, complete utility rebuilding both in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

(03:59:24)
All of the laying and supplies that are coming into us are coming from these type of vessels. If they are then going to be imposed this fee, negotiations that have already been done with FEMA for the cost of rebuilding are going to skyrocket and we need some support for that. The thought is, sir, is many of these shipbuilders are in fact American-owned. They're American shipping vessels that are American-owned. They are just Chinese made. Has there been discussion about having some exemption for American-owned American vessels that are coming out of Florida, going into the Caribbean?

(04:00:10)
I have a chart up here. 92 billion has come from the Caribbean, are imported from the United States. The Caribbean region, which only has 80 million people, is the fourth-greatest trade partner with the United States. Have you thought about exemptions for those individuals who are in there?

Mr. Greer (04:00:36):

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and feedback. We've also heard from other territories that have expressed similar concerns, and so we've had a process going on with hearings and collecting comments and this is certainly something that we take on board. I think it's very important. We have two things we're trying to thread here. One is the Chinese make all the ships mostly besides Japanese and Koreans, and we don't make any ships, and so we need to change the incentives there. But then we have the issue you're talking about is we're not going to make 25 ships on April 18th, the day after we put in any kind of measure.

(04:01:12)
So I certainly think that there has to be accommodation made for circumstances because we're not going to have all the ships on April 18th, so this is helpful to me. No decision has been finalized yet.

US Representative Stacey Plaskett (04:01:24):

I would also put this out. The other concern is one that has been mentioned by my colleagues as well is national security. We cannot have Caribbean nations moving closer to China, who is already on the shores of these Caribbean nations to try and do increased trade with them. If we are having a trade war with China, if we want to ensure that America is first, America needs to be first in its third border, which is the Caribbean. That was said by President George W. Bush. That is the third border.

(04:01:57)
That is what we need to secure, and we're not going to do it if we are pushing American shipping companies outside of the Caribbean and they have to go to China to do that. So I want to thank you for your consideration of this.

Mr. Greer (04:02:10):

Thank you.

Congressman Smith (04:02:11):

Mr. Bean.

Congressman Bean (04:02:12):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A very good afternoon to you and good afternoon, Ways and Means Committee, and a special welcome to our special guest, Ambassador Greer. Thank you so much. As I look at the clock, you have sat in the hot seat for four hours and the hot seat has gotten hot. I know it's gotten hot. It's gotten hot because you and this president, President Trump have chosen to not ignore a problem anymore. It would be so easy just to ignore it. It would be so easy to ignore our collapsing manufacturing base.

(04:02:50)
It would be so easy to just ignore that we're subsidizing the rest of the globe right now, but it's not how you roll. It's not how this president rolls. We're determined to make things better. The problem is, as you know this already, since 1994, we've lost five million, five million manufacturing jobs, 90,000, 90, I'm looking at a camera somewhere. I want the American people to know what's at stake. 90,000 manufacturing plants have closed. You have said enough. You have said enough, this president, President Trump said, I'm going to fix it.

(04:03:25)
I'm going to leave it better than I found it, and for our kids and grandkids, no more. Ambassador Greer, can you tell us, tell the American people what's going to happen if you just ignored it? If we just ignored it, is it unsustainable? If we just ignored the problem, what happens to our economy?

Mr. Greer (04:03:43):

Now, thank you for your comments. I agree completely with you. The situation is for the past 30 years or so, we have had a trade policy dictated by Wall Street, and that's what I have people screaming at me today, the Wall Street talking points, repeating everything. They're trying to tell me what Goldman Sachs thinks. They're telling me all these different kinds of things. We're not talking about the next quarterly earnings for the investors on Wall Street. When the Wall Street Journal says, oh, well, this is going to be bad for Wall Street.

(04:04:08)
I'm kind of focused on Main Street. I'm focused on getting these jobs back. We're sensitive to volatility in the market. We're sensitive to this. The problem is there's not a silver bullet where we can magically have everything bright and shiny again immediately, but we have to take strong measures. I would love to have Congress also take strong measures to help with re-shoring and to support during this transition where we adjust from an economy that's fueled by government spending and over-financialization to one where we're making real goods and services.

(04:04:38)
Because if we don't do it, Congressman, if we don't do it, then we will be dependent completely on others, including our foreign adversaries for the things we need the most.

Congressman Bean (04:04:46):

Amen. Like drugs and manufacturing, 50% of which comes from our adversary China, which is a shame. It's working. It is working, and I want the American people to know there are dozens of companies that said, hey, we're going to come back. We're going to invest in America, Apple, OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank Johnson & Johnson, thousands of jobs, billions and billions of money, so it is working. And I do know as a tweet right now, we've got over 70 countries that said, America, we want to work with you. We're going to eliminate tariffs.

(04:05:21)
So it is working, and my phone just went off that the president just recently said, we're going to call time out, a 60-day pause on every nation except China. That's breaking news, Mr. Ambassador, which is really good. I want us to be sensitive though, and I've heard from manufacturing, two in my area alone, growing wood said, amen. Finally, we can't have Brazil and Canada dumping wood, the seafood industry, which is big in Florida. Also China, shrimp comes from China enough. What about companies that ordered product before the tariffs before liberation day?

(04:05:59)
Are we going to recognize the custom and border protection have put arbitrary dates? I just want to get that on the record and hopefully you and your team will recognize that. Is that something that's on your radar screen of when they've ordered it before? Are they still going to be able to comply with some deadlines?

Mr. Greer (04:06:19):

So I know normally what happens when you take a tariff action, if there are goods on the water on route, that's something where it's not going to be subject to a tariff. I think we have a little bit of a pause right now as we're negotiating with countries, and we can take a look at that and figure out what makes sense.

Congressman Bean (04:06:33):

10-4, and then coordinating with customs. Your team has given me the thumbs up that I just want to put that on the record. How are we going to compete when countries like China that are subsidized in foreign governments, how are we going to make sure the American worker can compete against them? Is that on your radar screen?

Mr. Greer (04:06:50):

Yeah. No, it definitely is. I mean, as we're looking at these other countries, I mentioned this a little earlier, maybe it was to Congressman Miller. If we're getting to a situation where we actually have a deal for better reciprocal trade with other countries, I want to make sure that it's a benefit to us and that country. I don't want a third country like China benefiting from it.

Congressman Bean (04:07:08):

Amen. Mr. Ambassador, on behalf of people in Florida, Northeast Florida, thank you for standing up for the American worker, finally. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Greer (04:07:18):

Thank you.

Congressman Smith (04:07:19):

Mr. Suozzi.

Congressman Suozzi (04:07:23):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ambassador, thanks for being here today. Thanks for your service. I saw that you were a missionary and you were a veteran and you had a big job at a law firm, and now you're here serving the government. You helped negotiate the USMCA. Did you think the USMCA was a good deal for America?

Mr. Greer (04:07:38):

I think it was. There was a lot more we could have done and should have done.

Congressman Suozzi (04:07:41):

So why did the president come out after this year and say it was one of the worst deals we ever negotiated in the history of the country?

Mr. Greer (04:07:47):

I think it's frustrating that here we are five years later and steel imports from Mexico shot up, car imports from Mexico shot up.

Congressman Suozzi (04:07:54):

Well, you think it was a good deal, but he thinks it was a terrible deal. I mean, I feel like you're in a very bad position here. This whole idea that this president made this switcheroo on you while you were in the middle of testifying here today. I actually feel bad for you-

Mr. Greer (04:08:06):

No, I-

Congressman Suozzi (04:08:07):

… But I really feel bad for the American people that are seeing these things happen. There's no plan. I mean, that's my big concern. I know there's goals. I want to see manufacturing brought back to America, or at least I want to see jobs that pay more money so we can rebuild our middle class in America. I'm for that. I'm for holding China accountable and holding our adversaries accountable. I'm for tariffs in select specific places, but right now all we know is prices are going up, we're pissing off our allies, and the stock market went down dramatically.

(04:08:41)
It's gone up dramatically today. The market manipulation question by Mr. Horsford is a very real concern that we are going to have to dig into a little bit. Who's benefiting from these wild fluctuations down, wild fluctuation up? We're still way down. We need a plan to accomplish the objectives that I know that you genuinely believe in, which is to try and recreate the middle class here in the United States of America that on my side of the aisle, we all believe in that we have to recreate the middle class in America. Do you think we should increase the minimum wage in America?

Mr. Greer (04:09:11):

I think we need to create jobs that naturally have high wages.

Congressman Suozzi (04:09:14):

The minimum wage in 20 states is 7.25 an hour. Do you think we should increase the minimum wage?

Mr. Greer (04:09:19):

I think the states should be managing that kind of thing. I think we need better manufacturing jobs-

Congressman Suozzi (04:09:22):

20 states-

Mr. Greer (04:09:22):

… 30, 40, $50 an hour.

Congressman Suozzi (04:09:23):

20 states rely on the federal minimum wage. It's still 7.25 an hour, so you don't think we should increase it at the federal level?

Mr. Greer (04:09:29):

Well, you'll have to talk to the Secretary of Labor on that. That's way outside-

Congressman Suozzi (04:09:31):

Do you think we should have the Pro Act to promote unions in America? Because that will help to recreate the middle class.

Mr. Greer (04:09:37):

I'd refer you to Secretary Chavez-DeRemer. She's much better placed.

Congressman Suozzi (04:09:41):

Do you like the CHIPS Act that to reassure the manufacturing of semiconductors here in the United States of America, a national industrial policy where we invest in creating factories with high skilled high-wage jobs in America? Do you support the CHIPS Act?

Mr. Greer (04:09:56):

So notionally, I agree that we should have industrial policy to help with CHIPS and other things. Whether the CHIPS Act was the perfect way to do it, I don't know, but-

Congressman Suozzi (04:10:03):

So my big concern is that we'd want to do these things. You and I share the same goals, but there's no plan right now. As we saw, there's been devastation from this unilateral action by the President where he treats our allies and our strategic adversaries the same with the exception of China. We know that China's, and I'm all for that. I actually have a bill that I've sponsored to get rid of most favored trade nation for China. But why are we treating our allies, why are we treating Japan and Korea and Australia who have been our bulwarks against China in the Indo-Pacific.

(04:10:42)
And Vietnam, even though they don't share our philosophy, they're sick of China as well, and we were building a relationship with them to help us be a bulwark against China. Why are we treating our allies in the Indo-Pacific who are our main allies against China the same as we're treating our adversaries?

Mr. Greer (04:11:02):

We aren't treating them the same. They have substantially lower tariffs than China.

Congressman Suozzi (04:11:05):

I know, but we just really kind of bombarded them. I mean, it's the same as USMCA. We negotiated a bipartisan trade agreement that everybody agreed upon, that the president praised as being the best deal ever, and now he pulls the rug. Like he pulled the rug out from under you today, he pulled the rug out from under Canada and Mexico. I mean, it doesn't seem like there's no plan. Do you think that there's a plan and can you share the plan with us?

Mr. Greer (04:11:34):

Certainly. Listen, I'm very confident in the president's policy. Goods that meet USMCA rules come in duty free. So when the president comes out and he says, we're going to have a tariff to make sure we're treated the same, that we can get rid of these deficits. We have a baseline 10% to make sure that we don't have Swiss cheese in this program, and then we have higher tariffs on those who are the worst offenders. That's why you end up in a-

Congressman Suozzi (04:11:58):

The president put in place this-

Mr. Greer (04:11:58):

Can I finish?

Congressman Suozzi (04:11:59):

Yeah, the president put in place these high tariffs, but today he just yanked them out. Is that part of the plan? Was that always part of the plan?

Mr. Greer (04:12:07):

Well, they're paused. The reality is a lot of these countries have come to us and they said, we understand American leadership. We understand what you're trying to do. We want to have reciprocal trade with you. China has taken a different choice, and so they're on a different path. Our Western Hemisphere countries, they all have the lowest rate. They have a 10% rate. The UK, Australia, they have a 10% rate. These are all the lowest. The big issues are in Asia where we saw the offshoring and China is in a category all by itself.

Congressman Suozzi (04:12:33):

Okay. Thank you, Ambassador. Appreciate your time today. I'm very concerned there's no plan, and this is being done kind of willy-nilly at the last minute by the president out of his head. It doesn't really make sense to us. It'd be great if we knew what the plan was and it was shared to us by the administration. And even if it was done in way for our committee, that we could at least know what's happening. We have a lot of the same goals, but right now prices are going up, our allies are very upset and the stock market is on fire. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman Smith (04:13:05):

Thank you. Mr. Gomez is recognized to enter and document the record.

Congressman Gomez (04:13:09):

Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to enter a tweet by Howard Lutnick, basically where he states Scott Besson and him sat with president when they drafted the post, the Truth Social post that paused the tariffs for 90 days. This is just to emphasize that we don't really know who's running things over there.

Congressman Smith (04:13:29):

So ordered. Thank you. Mr. Moran.

Congressman Moran (04:13:32):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Greer, thank you for your time today. Sincerely appreciate you coming down to answer questions during this week. I know your time is busy. I want you to know that I support President Trump's effort to achieve trade reciprocity and equal treatment for the United States on the world economic stage with those countries that are strategically aligned with the US. As a short-term negotiation strategy, I am hopeful that the current tactics of the administration will restore trade disparities and imbalances around the world to induce our friends and allies around the world to reduce or eliminate their tariffs on the US and eliminate anti-American non-tariff trade barriers like quotas, subsidies, sanctions, unreasonable regulatory restrictions that are there against and on American products, not to mention currency manipulation and intellectual property theft issues.

(04:14:25)
If President Trump is able to achieve this worthy reset, it will have a material long- term benefit for the American economy and the American worker. I'm confident about that. I'm confident that his strong leadership can achieve these results using this tool, but I do think it's also important for you to hear from me that I urge, caution and express my hesitation on the use of tariffs as a long-term economic strategy rather than a short-term negotiation strategy. In my opinion, freer trade practices traditionally have helped spur economic growth, technology innovation, and cooperation of economies.

(04:15:02)
Freer trade also helps to keep consumer prices lower in my opinion. I want to come back to and visit this idea of China because I think China really is the big problem here when we're looking out on the world stage. I was glad to see that we even went up date from 104 to 125% on the tariffs according to the tweet that was put out just a little bit ago, and China I think needs to be our focus on where we put our efforts in the next few months. The de minimis rule is $800 or was before the recent executive order. I want the American people to understand.

(04:15:39)
I would love for you to explain how the China friendly de minimis rule was helping China companies undercut American companies before the President's April 2nd executive order went into place.

Mr. Greer (04:15:51):

Certainly. So just to lay it out, the de minimis exemption, it's a provision of law that allows goods to come in. If they're valued under $800, they can come in duty free, and we have a lot of Chinese companies that have leveraged this to avoid tariffs. We have high tariffs on China for very good reasons, and they have used this law to bring in these goods. We have also heard that this has been used because there's little scrutiny of these packages. They can be used to include illicit substances, counterfeit products, things that harm US people, but also US companies. And so it's been a loophole, and so that's one of the reasons why I know there's been bipartisan movement in Congress to deal with it, why the president was comfortable moving forward with that as well.

Congressman Moran (04:16:39):

Yeah. And I think the American people don't realize what a big loophole that has been over the past four years and how devastating that has been to a number of American businesses to have China unfairly compete under the de minimis rule. So I applaud the president including that in his executive order, and I hope we eliminate that altogether moving forward. I also want to talk to you about the fact that China's involved in a worldwide illegal and unregulated fishing around the world.

(04:17:05)
Is the president's team, is the administration looking at helping to stop the illegal and unregulated fishing that's occurring across the globe by China?

Mr. Greer (04:17:16):

Yes. I have an office at USTR that deals with environmental-type issues, and they're very focused on this particular issue of fishing. It's something we're looking at. There are folks in the Senate too are very concerned about this. We currently have now tariffs on China, so that at least creates a deterrent from having that in our market, but it's a broader issue that we should deal with

Congressman Moran (04:17:37):

Yeah. It not only hurts American fishing, but it actually undercuts particularly the global south from being able to have a revival of their economies in their fishing waters, which makes them more dependent on China as China comes in and invades effectively the global south, as you know. The US, moving on to a different topic, the US has now imposed as of today 125% import tariff on China. China hasn't indicated that they're really willing to come to the table yet. I was glad to see that all these other countries have come to the table.

(04:18:12)
I think that's because of the strength the president's leadership is showing across the world stage that he means business, that we're going to have a reset where American businesses are not taken advantage of. But what is the administration planning to do to make China come to the table and actually engage in freer trade or fairer trade and cut out these unfair trade practices?

Mr. Greer (04:18:33):

Well, China doesn't believe in free trade or fair trade for that matter. We had an agreement with them under Trump One and they started to comply with some of that. In the Biden administration, there was no enforcement, and to some degree, they've chosen their own path. And when they're ready and when they want to talk about how to have a better approach, obviously we always have an open door

Congressman Moran (04:18:54):

Ambassador, again, I applaud the President's efforts, particularly as it regards China to push hard on China already and to make them understand that we are not going to lay over and let them run this world that United States is going to reset the economic states. Thank you, and I yield back.

Congressman Smith (04:19:10):

Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Greer, for appearing before us today. 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.

Mr. Greer (04:19:26):

Thanks.

Congressman Smith (04:19:26):

Thank you.