[Senate Hearing 113-247]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-247
SMITHFIELD AND BEYOND:
EXAMINING FOREIGN PURCHASES OF
AMERICAN FOOD COMPANIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-565 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
MAX BAUCUS, Montana PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
WILLIAM ``MO'' COWAN, Massachusetts
Christopher J. Adamo, Majority Staff Director
Jonathan W. Coppess, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Thomas Allen Hawks, Minority Staff Director
Anne C. Hazlett, Minority Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Smithfield and Beyond: Examining Foreign Purchases of American
Food Companies................................................. 1
----------
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan,
Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry... 1
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 3
Witnesses
Pope, Larry, President and CEO, Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
Smithfield, Virginia........................................... 5
Slaughter, Hon. Matthew J., Associate Dean for Faculty, Signal
Companies' Professor of Management, Faculty Director of the
Center for Global Business and Government, Tuck School of
Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire............ 6
Haley, Usha, Professor and Director, Robbins Center for Global
Business and Strategy, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
West Virginia.................................................. 8
Slane, Daniel, Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission, Washington, DC.............................. 10
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Brown, Hon. Sherrod.......................................... 34
Grassley, Hon. Charles....................................... 36
Haley, Usha.................................................. 40
Pope, Larry,................................................. 58
Slane, Daniel................................................ 65
Slaughter, Hon. Matthew J.................................... 71
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
prepared statement......................................... 80
United Food and Commercial Workers, ``Summary of Data on Food
Safety''................................................... 83
``China Food Prices Continue Climb'', article, Wall Street
Journal, September 6, 2011................................. 86
Question and Answer:
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
Written questions to Daniel Slane............................ 88
Written questions to Larry Pope.............................. 88
Written questions to Usha Haley.............................. 88
Brown, Hon. Sherrod:
Written questions to Larry Pope.............................. 89
Written questions to Daniel Slane............................ 90
Written questions to Usha Haley.............................. 90
Written questions to Hon. Matthew J. Slaughter............... 91
Cochran, Hon. Thad:
Written questions to Hon. Matthew J. Slaughter............... 92
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten:
Written questions to Larry Pope.............................. 93
Written questions to Daniel Slane............................ 94
Written questions to Usha Haley.............................. 95
Grassley, Hon. Charles:
Written questions to Usha Haley.............................. 96
Written questions to Larry Pope.............................. 96
Written questions to Daniel Slane............................ 96
Written questions to Hon. Matthew J. Slaughter............... 96
Haley, Usha:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 98
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 101
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 105
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 107
Pope, Larry:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 112
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 112
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 114
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 118
Slane, Daniel:
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 122
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 122
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand... 123
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 124
Slaughter, Hon. Matthew J.:
Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........ 127
Written response to questions from Hon. Thad Cochran......... 128
Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley..... 128
SMITHFIELD AND BEYOND:
EXAMINING FOREIGN PURCHASES OF
AMERICAN FOOD COMPANIES
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
United States Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., room
562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
Present or submitting a statement: Senators Stabenow,
Brown, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Heitkamp, Cochran, Roberts,
Boozman, Johanns, Thune, and Grassley
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION
AND FORESTRY
Chairwoman Stabenow. Good afternoon.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry will now come to order.
Before we begin the hearing, I just want to take a moment
for our Committee members to say again how proud I am of this
Committee in working together in a bipartisan way to pass the
Farm Bill, not once but twice, two different distinguished
Ranking Members.
We know there are some challenges in the other body but I
am confident that the leadership and the role models that we
have set in working together will ultimately prevail.
I just want to thank everyone again for working hard,
listening to each other, being willing to make some compromises
in the interest of passing a bill and making agreements and
sticking to them and working hard.
Senator Cochran, I want to thank you also for your
leadership in doing that; and I am proud that we have been able
to get that done.
From the very beginning of human history, we have seen
civilizations rise and fall based on their ability to feed
their people. That is why food security is absolutely essential
to National security, and it is why food and agriculture are
such an important and unique part of our American economy.
Not a day goes by that every one of us in this room is
reminded of the importance of a safe, affordable, and abundant
food supply. It can be easy for Americans to forget that food
does not just show up in the grocery store. Sometimes I feel we
have to remind people of that. It is a process that requires
risk taking, sound business practices, and a whole lot of hard
work from the 16 million people whose jobs rely on agriculture.
That is why the news of Shuanghui International's proposed
purchase of Smithfield Foods, the largest purchase of a U.S.
company by a Chinese firm, raises so many questions. Smithfield
might be the first acquisition of a major food and agricultural
company, but I doubt it will be the last.
That is why we must take a long-term view of what is
happening. We need to be having this conversation and
evaluating what is in the best interests of American families
and our American economy because the importance of our food
supply, and security, and safety cannot be underestimated.
First, is our approval process adequate to handle issues
unique to food security and safety? Important question, this is
a precedent-setting case and we owe it to consumers, producers,
and workers to ensure we are asking the right questions and
evaluating the long-term implications.
Last week, Senator Cochran and I along with a number of
members of this Committee urged the Secretary of the Treasury
to include the USDA and FDA in the review process of this
transaction by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States, and that is why we will be meeting later today
with officials from the Department of Treasury in conjunction
with the Banking Committee so that Senators can get briefed on
the CFIUS process. We also ask that this be the process in the
future for transactions involving the food supply.
I firmly believe that economic security is part of our
National security and that it should be considered when our
government reviews foreign investment into the United States.
Unlike other countries, the United States does not currently
undertake such a review and I believe that needs to change.
Second, we need to evaluate how foreign purchases of our
food supply will affect our economy broadly, and frankly,
whether there is a level playing field when it comes to these
kinds of business acquisitions.
Could this sale happen if it were the other way around?
Could Smithfield purchase Shuanghui? Based on what we have
heard from many experts already, it sounds like the answer is
``no''. I hope we can get some clarification on this point from
our panelists today.
We need to be evaluating the long-term market implications
of this deal for American workers, pork producers, and the
farmers who grow grain and feed ingredients.
Despite the strength of America's pork sector, Smithfield
has been struggling to make a profit, and yet Shuanghui is
offering to pay a 30 percent premium for the company. That, to
me, raises questions about the economic motivations of the
purchase.
Is Shuanghui focused on acquiring Smithfield's technology,
which was developed with considerable assistance by U.S.
taxpayers? As with all of our food companies, Smithfield has
benefited from years of public investments improving feed
rations, living conditions, environmental impact, food safety
and efficiency.
Can we really expect increased access for our pork products
in China, a country that already produces five times as many
hogs as we do and that uses barriers to keep U.S. pork out of
the country? Can we expect that after the company has adopted
Smithfield's excellent technology and practices, they will
increase exports to Japan, our largest export market, in
competition with U.S. products? Most importantly, will we see
volatility in prices and other long-term economic impacts?
In the short-term, I know this deal looks good for our
producers. This also needs to be a good deal in the long-term.
It is our responsibility to ask the right questions to make
sure that we are thinking in the long-term about these issues,
that is why we are here.
One pork company alone might not be enough to affect our
National security, but it is our job to be thinking about the
big picture and the long term for American food security and
economic security. Because as we all know on this Committee,
and we have all said so many times, food security is a part of
our National security.
I would now like to turn to my good friend and Ranking
Member, Senator Thad Cochran, and I appreciate very much your
leadership on the Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. We are very anxious to learn more about the facts with
respect to the proposed transaction that this Committee will be
considering today.
We want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for your impressive
leadership of the Committee and the example you have set by the
passage of a Farm Bill that still has us beaming with pride
over the success of that undertaking.
We likewise, think it is important for us to follow your
leadership again in the analysis and review of this proposed
transaction between Smithfield Foods and Shuanghui because,
first of all, it is one of the most widespread in terms of
possible economic impact of a transaction or acquisition of a
U.S. company by a Chinese company in history. That is what we
are being advised.
But it is the questions that flow from this that bring us
to this point, and we are anxious for our witnesses to touch on
that and things that we should know so we will appreciate the
economic consequences for our country as well as the possible
benefits that will flow to the individual companies that are
involved.
The U.S. economy has long benefited from investments from
overseas. We hope to be able to make some assurances or draw
some conclusions about the consequences in advance of this
transaction that is under review today.
We are proud of our American agriculture producers and our
food processors and distributors. We have the best in the world
and we are proud of that and we want to keep it that way.
But today, we are here to listen to our witnesses to help
better acquaint us with what we think we need to know.
Thank you for your cooperation with our Committee.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, and we welcome
all of our witnesses. We very much appreciate your time today
and let me introduced each of you. Senator Brown is going to
introduce one of our witnesses and then we will ask each of you
to speak for five minutes.
We welcome whatever written testimony you would like to
give us as well. Also any other follow-up testimony after today
that you would like to give us we would welcome as well.
So, I will introduce everyone together and then turn to our
first witness.
Our first witness on the panel is Mr. Larry Pope, President
and CEO of Smithfield Foods. Mr. Pope has served as president
and chief executive officer of the company since 2006. He
previously served as president and chief operating officer from
2001 to 2006 and vice president and chief financial officer
from 2000 to 2001. Mr. Pope's over 30-year career at the
company spans a variety of senior management roles and
responsibilities which provide an in-depth knowledge of the
company and broad experience in operational finance accounting
and risk management matters. So, we welcome you today.
Our second witness on the panel is Dr. Matthew Slaughter,
Associate Dean for Faculty at Tuck School of Business at
Dartmouth College. Dr. Slaughter joined Dartmouth's faculty in
1994, focusing his research on the economics and politics of
globalization. From 2005 to 2007, Dr. Slaughter served as a
member of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Bush.
Recently, Dr. Slaughter has focused on the global operations of
multinational firms and on labor market impacts of
international trade and investment. We welcome you as well
today.
Our third witness is Dr. Usha Haley, Professor of
Management and Director of the Robbins Center for Global
Business and Strategy at West Virginia University. Dr. Haley's
extensive research includes over 200 articles and presentations
and multiple books that explore companies and business
environments in India, China, Southeast Asia, and Mexico. Her
research on Chinese subsidies has also supported trade
regulations in the United States and the European Union.
Welcome to you.
Finally, I would like to turn to Senator Brown for the next
introduction.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to
introduce Dan Slane, Commissioner on the US-China Commission,
third term on that commission, appointed by Speaker Boehner,
formerly worked in the Ford White House a few years ago.
Dan Slane has an understanding, a particularly good
understanding as you will hear from his testimony, as you will
hear from his speaking today and see his written testimony,
seeing China both as the threat and the opportunity both that
it can be and is to our country in terms of economics and in
terms of National security, and I think he has a particularly
acute understanding of that and I look forward to hearing him
also.
As a former member of the Iowa State University Board of
Trustees, he proudly always wears his lapel pin signifying
that, football season, basketball season, academic season
alike. So, thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Brown, you had me up to that
point. As a Michigan State University graduate, I need to have
my green and white on today, Commissioner.
Mr. Pope, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LARRY POPE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SMITHFIELD FOODS,
INC., SMITHFIELD, VIRGINIA
Mr. Pope. Afternoon. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Stabenow,
Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the Committee. My name
is Larry Pope. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Smithfield Foods, a global food company and pork producer
based in Smithfield, Virginia.
I appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony to the
Committee today. At this time, I would like to summarize my
written testimony which I submitted for the record.
We at Smithfield are very excited about our announced new
partnership with Shuanghui, the majority owner of China's
largest pork processor. It provides enormous benefits for our
two companies, for American manufacturing, and American
agriculture.
It is a partnership that is all about growth and improving
the agricultural environment in both the U.S. and China. The
combined company expects to help meet the growing demand for
pork in China by exporting high quality poor products from the
U.S. This means increased capacity for U.S. producers, more
jobs in processing, and more exports for the U.S. economy.
At the same time, we will continue to supply our same high
quality, renowned products to U.S. consumers as well as other
markets around the world. In short, this partnership for growth
is good for our business and for the producers and the
suppliers with whom we work.
The reaction from the U.S. agricultural community has been
overwhelmingly positive. The Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina
Pork Producers Association, the North American Meat
Association, industry leaders, and numerous individual
producers have expressed support for this transaction.
Growth is also very good for Smithfield's employees and our
communities. We have a saying. It will be the same old
Smithfield only better. Let me be clear. Shuanghui intends to
retain Smithfield's management team, its plants, and all of its
employees.
Shuanghui recognizes Smithfield's best in class operations,
outstanding food safety practices, and our 46,000 hard-working
employees.
There should be no noticeable impact on how we do business
operationally in America and around the world as a result of
this acquisition except that we plan to do more of it.
Shuanghui will honor our collective bargaining agreements
in place with Smithfield's union-represented employees as well
as existing wage and benefit package arrangements for our non-
represented employees.
These commitments, combined with the opportunities for
growth created by this deal, have elicited the support of the
UFCW and our employees.
With respect to agriculture, we expect this transaction to
drive growth and expansion not only for our growers but for the
entire U.S. pork industry. Smithfield Foods owns 400 hog farms
and has contracts with over 2000 family farms across the
country. Our agreement with Shuanghui will maintain all of
these contracts and arrangements.
Moreover, this transaction creates a terrific opportunity
through growth in exports for U.S. hog farmers to expand to
meet the growing Chinese demand.
The integrity of our brands, our record of safety, the
safety of the U.S. food supply, and the recognized
effectiveness of U.S. food safety standards are key drivers of
value that Shuanghui places on Smithfield.
Our brands are recognized as representing the highest
quality, safest and most desired product throughout the world
including China. Our combined company thus has every incentive
to ensure the continued safety and excellence of our products
and brands.
This transaction is about exporting high quality meat from
the U.S. to China to meet their growing demand. This
combination will not result in any U.S. imports of food from
China. Moreover, all food products imported into the U.S. are
already subject to rigorous inspections and controls by
America's regulators to ensure their integrity, safety, and
wholesomeness. U.S. pork producers are the best and the most
efficient in the world.
We have voluntarily sought review of this acquisition from
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. where the
transaction is already undergoing a thorough review.
I appreciate this opportunity to address the Committee and
I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pope can be found on page 58
in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much
Dr. Slaughter.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MATTHEW J. SLAUGHTER, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR
FACULTY, SIGNAL COMPANIES' PROFESSOR OF MANAGEMENT, FACULTY
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR GLOBAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT, TUCK
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Slaughter. Committee Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking
Member Cochran, and fellow Members, thank you very much for
inviting me to testify on these important and timely issues of
how foreign purchases of American companies affect U.S. jobs
and overall economic strength.
In my testimony, I will make three main points that
together help explain the many benefits that the Shuanghui
acquisition of Smithfield Foods should bring to Smithfield's
stakeholders including its employees and to the broader U.S.
economy.
First, merger-and-acquisition transactions have long been
the main strategy by which global companies establish and
expand operations in America. Acquisitions of U.S. companies by
foreign entities are an everyday reality in the today's global
economy.
Indeed, here in 2013 there have already been nearly 500
such acquisitions, about three every business day. These
transactions have long been critical for the United States to
benefit from inward foreign direct investment.
For decades, the vast majority of new FDI into America has
come in the form of M and A transactions rather than via
greenfield investments that establish a brand-new company.
From 1987 through 2006, the United States received $2
trillion in new FDI, of which 88.8 percent was accounted for by
foreign companies buying American companies.
The second main point of my testimony is that U.S.
affiliates of global companies, despite accounting for far less
than 1 percent of U.S. businesses, have long performed large
shares of America's productivity-enhancing activities that lead
to millions of the kind of high wage jobs that America needs in
this slow recovery from the great recession.
In 2010, the U.S. subsidiaries of global companies produced
about 6 percent of all U.S. private sector output. They
undertook over 14 percent of both non-residential, private
sector capital investment and of total U.S. private R and D.
They accounted for almost 18 percent of U.S. exports of goods,
and they did all of this while purchasing almost $2 trillion
dollars in intermediate inputs from other U.S. companies.
All these activities contribute to millions of high-paying
jobs here in America. In 2011, these U.S. affiliates employed
5.6 million workers in the United States, 5 percent of total
private employment, at a per-worker average compensation of
over $77,000, more than a third above the U.S. average and at
higher unionization rates than at other U.S. companies.
The third main point of my testimony is that all public
information about the Shuanghui-Smithfield transaction
indicates it will benefit Smithfield's stakeholders and the
broader U.S. economy by maintaining a high innovation
enterprise.
A primary motivation for Shuanghui is to access and learn
from Smithfield's expertise in a number of related areas,
including its strong management team, its leading brands, and
its vertically integrated business model. This motivation
accords with much of the historical pattern of inward FDI into
America.
Consistent with this historical pattern, and as Mr. Pope
explained, post acquisition Smithville plans to operate largely
as it does today. All key leaders and management teams will
remain in place, all collective bargaining agreements and wage
and benefit arrangements will be honored with all employees,
and no plants or facilities will be closed.
There is nothing inherently worrisome or unusual about the
Chinese aspect of this transaction. What about the risks of
state-owned enterprises? Although SOEs remain prominent in
China, Shuanghui is not one. In fact, its stakeholders include
Goldman Sachs.
What about possible risks to Smithfield's intellectual
property? IP theft in China has quickly become one of the
gravest threats to the global economic system and to innovative
U.S. companies and their workers here at home.
In this context, it is important to see that the Smithfield
transaction offers exhibit A of the ideal solution to this
grave problem, an American company being paid by a Chinese
company billions of dollars for its ideas in a transparent
market-based deal.
Indeed, Shuanghui seeks to deploy Smithfield's expertise,
products, and brands in China largely through boosting
Smithfield's exports to China to better meet surging poor
demand driven by rising household income growth in Chinese
families. These greater exports will help reduce the U.S.-China
bilateral trade imbalance that last year reached a record $315
billion.
There also appears to be nothing inherently worrisome about
the food aspect of the Smithfield transaction. As with many
industries in food manufacturing, global companies have long
played an important role in the U.S. economy. These global food
companies already today employ over 200,000 American workers.
Let me close by placing the Smithfield transaction in the
context of an America that today continues to confront too few
jobs and too little economic growth. The good news is there is
a future in which America can create millions of good jobs
connected to the world via international trade and investment.
Should it ultimately goes through, a smooth Smithfield
purchase would send a valuable signal to China and to the world
that the United States welcomes inward investment at a time
where it is especially needed.
Thank you again for your time and interest in my testimony.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slaughter can be found on
page 71 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Dr. Haley.
STATEMENT OF USHA HALEY, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, ROBBINS CENTER
FOR GLOBAL BUSINESS AND STRATEGY, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY,
MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Haley. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Stabenow and
Committee members. I have submitted my full statement to the
Committee which I ask be made part of the hearing record.
My name is Usha Haley, currently Professor and Director of
the Robbins Center for Global Business and Strategy, West
Virginia University.
I have researched Chinese business and global strategy for
almost 15 years. The point of my testimony is that this
takeover provides long-term benefits to China, Henan province
and Shuanghui, and short-term benefits to Smithfield's managers
and shareholders. But, the medium and long-term benefits to
U.S. consumers, industry, and society are questionable and the
risks outweigh the benefits.
Shuanghui is a highly subsidized and opaquely managed
Chinese private company. This largest takeover of an American
by a Chinese company will double the number of our jobs tied to
Chinese direct investment.
As Australian and African experiences with China show,
problems arise. After the acquisition, Smithfield will not
trade publicly and information will come from Chinese reports.
This deal will affect food safety, how we do business, and
compatibility with our policies.
In China, politics trumps economics. No free market exists
for China's food products and arguments of the efficiencies
from global logistics fall short. When subsidies and negative
externalities such as pollution exist as they do here, markets
can no longer set prices.
U.S. pig farming is a consolidated, modern industry with
economies of scale. The Chinese pork industry is fragmented,
small-scale, and low tech as in the paper and other strategic
Chinese industries we studied. Labor costs there were similar
to food processing, under 7 percent from purchases. Scale
economies mattered. Yet, in five years China moved from net
importer to largest manufacturer and exporter.
We found that subsidies gave China that hidden advantage:
free loans, cheap raw materials, energy, and land, and tech
acquisition support.
Shuanghui's subsidiary almost certainly gets subsidies from
its province just as competitor Yurun Pork with subsidies to
net profits of 36 percent.
Pork processing is a strategic industry for China.
Shuanghui's subsidiary is Henan's largest employer in the
province's pillar industry. Beijing's indigenous innovation
policies also subsidize applied research in pork processing.
A state-owned bank may finance the Smithfield take over.
Another will help with exports. Smithfield could become the
lowest rung of the commodity supply chain.
High-value manufacturing would move to China leaving low
value, low tech pork production here. Shuanghui could insert
local hogs and re-export processed food back to the U.S. under
the Smithfield brand.
But evaluating Shuanghui is difficult. The Smithfield bid
included Goldman but also New Horizon, founded by Winston Wen,
the former Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao's son. In China,
annual reports and formal reporting relationships never tell
the full story.
Chairman Wan Long is a member of China's National People's
Congress that formalizes the Chinese Communist Party's
measures. Accounting data provide little information on these
business-government links. Incomplete information could impact
the stock market, company evaluations, pricing, and other food
producers' competitive positions.
There have been outrageous food safety violations.
Shuanghui fed pigs the banned chemical clenbuteral. Chinese
food horrors include glowing pork, cadmium rice, rat meat sold
as mutton, toxic milk, et cetera, et cetera. 16,000 dead pigs
floated down a Shanghai river in March.
Smithfield's Larry Pope recently said, ``Open your
refrigerator door, look inside. Nothing in there is made in
China because American agriculture is the most competitive and
efficient in the world.'' Mr. Pope is wrong. China shipped four
billion pounds of food to the U.S. last year including half the
apple juice, 80 percent of the tilapia, and more than 10
percent of frozen spinach.
The U.S. has periodically banned numerous imported Chinese
foods. Supermarkets display imported foods' country of origin
but restaurants do not. Also processed imported foods require
no such labeling.
IP protection in China is also poor. Increased counterfeit
American food products from China will lead to brand dilution
and loss of U.S. export markets.
With record subsidies, China is encouraging buying foreign
food assets and farms. Smithfield is the first and we should
prepare for others in agriculture as a matter of national
interest.
For China, Smithfield provides benefits of American land,
water, brands, and technology. As Continental Grain argued,
benefits even to Smithfield's shareholders are unclear. In a
conference call with analysts, Shuanghui's managing director
said, ``We want the business to stay the same but be better.''
Today, Mr. Pope echoed this sentiment. Neither explained
how Smithfield would become better without technology or know-
how from Shuanghui. Neither elaborated on better for whom, the
question that CFIUS and this Committee should be asking on
behalf of the American people.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I stand
ready to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haley can be found on page
40 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Slane.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL SLANE, COMMISSIONER, U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC
AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Slane. Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Cochran, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear today.
Prior to serving on the U.S.-China commission, I owned and
operated three plywood factories in China. The U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission, on which I serve, has
not taken a position on this proposed transaction and has not
made any public statements on it. The views I present today are
entirely my own.
Shuanghui's purchase of Smithfield is part of China's far-
reaching program of foreign investments aimed at gaining as
much control of key foreign sources of supply as possible. I
remain concerned that many of the largest Chinese enterprises,
including Shuanghui, maintains strategic ties to the Chinese
government whether through direct ownership or control,
preferential access to massive government subsidies, or
personal links to the Chinese Communist Party. It is important
to understand that the Chinese government is really behind
China's global economic expansion.
With 21 percent of the world population, China has only 7
percent of the productive farmland. The country suffers from
severe water shortages in its northern half and extensive
surface water and air pollution. When you couple this with the
growing demand for meat, you can begin to understand the
enormous challenges faced by China's leadership and its agro
industry.
China does not have sufficient farmland to grow as the
feedstock required to produce the amount of meat and dairy
demanded by their citizens. China is on track to spend a record
amount on the purchase of food assets and farms. The drive for
agricultural assets in South America, Australia, Africa, and
other locations has ignited concerns for lawmakers around the
world.
In my view, the purchase of Smithfield by China is the
first of what I would expect to be many forays into rural
America. China's purchase of Smithfield is driven by two major
factors.
Number one, China wants some control over the commodity
price of pork. With Smithfield's commanding domination of the
U.S. pork industry, they can have some impact on pricing.
Number two, the Chinese want Smithfield's valuable
technology in hod genetics. Smithfield also has some of the
most advanced meat processing technology and manure management
techniques that help foster industrial scale hog production. It
is interesting to note that U.S. taxpayers help finance much of
Smithfield's growth through USDA grants.
Now, I would like to turn to the potential impact this
purchase may have on our economy. Number one, Shuanghui's
takeover of Smithfield will exacerbate a pattern of U.S. trade
relations that have taken hold over the past 10 years whereby
value-added production is shifted to or owned by China to the
detriment of U.S. workers and businesses.
It raises the question of whether allowing a Chinese
company to dominate our pork processing industry is in the best
interest of the United States. If this deal is approved, it
will open the door for other purchases of U.S. food companies
by Chinese firms or investors.
Our agriculture and food sector is unusually concentrated
with just a few companies dominating the market in each link of
our food chain.
Number two, another risk is that this deal will do little
to improve overall market access for U.S. pork. China is
unlikely to abandon its policy of self-sufficiency meat
production. A more likely result is a closed market,
intracompany trade between Shuanghui and the Smithfield. Given
Smithfield's massive output, it alone might suffice for China's
limited quota of U.S. pork.
Number three, this deal has been promoted as a way to
facilitate U.S. pork exports to China, but ultimately,
Shuanghui could export pork back to us. The adoption of
Smithfield'S hog genetics and processing technologies will
dramatically improve hog production in China and could allow
Shuanghui to reverse the global flow of pork products, and if
approved, begin the export of Chinese pork to the U.S..
Shuanghui is expected to apply for approval to re-export
pork products processed from imported U.S. hogs and may even
apply to ship pork from hogs raised in China.
Number four, providing foreign competitors access to
Smithfield's technology and intellectual property could
disadvantage our domestic hog industry both here and globally.
Shuanghui is expected to adopt Smithfield's hog genetic
lines that could weaken U.S. pork opportunities.
Shuanghui has extensive supply chain and distribution
system in China and throughout Asia with operations in Japan
and South Korea. The merger would improve the position of
Shuanghui's mainland China processing plants by sharing U.S.
technology and expertise and potentially allowing Shuanghui to
undercut U.S. pork exports to the Pacific Rim. It will limit
the ability of other U.S. exports to get a foothold in this
market.
In conclusion, I think it is reasonable for you to expect a
wave of Chinese investments into our food and agricultural
industry. As China becomes a global player and a fierce
competitor in American markets, its political system and state
capital ideology pose a threat.
With that in mind, the commission in its report to Congress
last year made the following recommendation. Congress examine
foreign direct investment from China to the United States and
assess whether there is a need to amend the CFIUS statute to,
number one, require a mandatory review of all controlling
transactions by Chinese state-owned or state-controlled
companies investing in the United States.
Number two, add a new economic benefits test to the
existing National security test that CFIUS administers, and
three, prohibit an investment in a U.S. industry by a foreign
company whose government prohibits foreign investments in that
same industry.
Thank you for allowing me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slane can be found on page
65 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much to each of you.
Let me just start the questioning with something simple. If
you can do yes or no that would be great, and that is and we
will start with Mr. Pope.
If this transaction were to happen in the reverse, would
China allow Smithfield to buy Shuanghui?
Mr. Pope. Senator, I am not sure I am an expert on reverse
mergers into China and so I would yield to those at the panel
who have more expertise in terms of that. But, I know there are
U.S. acquisitions into China. I could not really answer that
question one way or the other.
Chairwoman Stabenow. When you and I met, you talked about
originally looking at your buying a portion of their company,
their buying a portion of yours. There was an attempt at that,
what happened there?
Mr. Pope. We had a discussion about five years ago about
Shuanghui buying 20 percent of Smithfield and Smithfield buying
20 percent of Shuanghui. Chairman Wan and myself had that. Then
over the period of time that did not occur.
I do not remember any involvement of the Chinese government
approving or disapproving. In fact, I am not sure anyone in the
government was even ever aware of the conversations and so I do
not think there were any regulatory barriers to that. There
were more business issues associated with that, and we had
subsequent conversation even since then.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Slaughter, yes or no, could that happen in reverse?
Mr. Slaughter. I do not know. I do know that China's
amazing growth since 1978 has come in some basic sense by the
government getting out of the business of running business.
They had a complete command and control economy for decades. It
remains a work in progress.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Okay, Dr. Haley.
Ms. Haley. No, as a matter of fact, it would not happen.
That same question was raised in a Chinese blog, Weibo, and a
big debate about it followed. Everybody said no there as well.
The reason is this is a strategically important industry;
and as most people in China know, the power of the state has
actually been increasing vis-a-vis-private interests in China
as a proportion of total production. So this is, no.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Commissioner Slane, could this happen
in reverse?
Mr. Slane. Absolutely not, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Okay. I do have another question. I do
want to say that, Dr. Slaughter, one of the things that you
said was concerning to me if I heard correctly. You were saying
that, as we all know, we have issues of intellectual property
theft with China. This is no secret. There has been a huge
issue in all kinds of industries, manufacturing and so on.
But then you said the ideal solution to the problem of IP
theft is this situation. Does that mean you think the ideal
solution is for China just to buy all our companies and then
they would have all our intellectual property?
Mr. Slaughter. No, Senator. My point is right now we know
that hundreds of thousands if not millions of American jobs are
lost because of IP theft in China.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Right, but why is it ideal? Why having
a Chinese company buying an American company the solution? That
is the solution to IP theft?
Mr. Slaughter. So, around the world in lots of industries
including the United States there is an active market around
companies for the exchange of ideas. So, companies create ideas
through their hard R and D and lots of different innovation
efforts and the companies deploy those assets for themselves
but a lot of times the motivation for M and A transactions
across companies is precisely to gain ideas of others. So,
having market mediated transactions like that is far preferable
to theft.
Chairwoman Stabenow. It is absolutely. I would suggest that
following the rules is preferable to theft as well. So, let me
ask one other thing before turning to colleagues; and that is,
we have been told that Shuanghui wants to buy Smithfield
because need more pork and want it sourced from the United
States.
But, if that were true, if that were true, American
producers would be happy to do that today. Right now our pork
producers in Michigan would be more than happy if they would be
allowed to sell into China which they are not.
Now, Smithfield is a unique situation as an integrated
facility, business. But, we spent $23 million this year to
promote U.S. meat exports but we cannot open the Chinese
market. They use illegal, unscientific food safety standards to
block both pork and beef.
I am all about exports. As a member of the President's
Export Council, I want to see export our products; but it seems
to me removing the unfair barriers from China would be a lot
quicker and more efficient than just saying that the only way
we can get in is if they own our company. That does not make
sense to me.
Commissioner Slane, I wonder if from your perspective if
you might speak about this.
Mr. Slane. Yes. Madam Chairman, this is really all about
control, and the Chinese could easily go out and buy pork on
the market. The problem with that is they subject themselves to
huge price increases, and they learned in the iron ore and the
coal business that it was better for them to buy the mines than
to just buy the ore.
So, here what they have found is that multinational,
vertically integrated meat processing companies have a cost and
price advantage. So, they have told their domestic industries
like Shuanghui go out and find these companies and acquire
them. This is all about trying to control the price of pork,
and at the same time, they are getting the value added benefit
by purchasing Smithfield.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. I am over my time.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Well, my reaction to the testimony of the
last witness is that there are many more negative factors that
should be considered by our Committee than positive ones if
this merger or acquisition goes through. Is that inaccurate?
Mr. Slane. No. I would agree with that, Senator. I think
the endgame, from the Chinese point of view, is to ultimately
dominate our domestic pork market. They will take Smithfield's
technology. They will integrate it into China.
They are converting from backyard hog production to
industrial scale. They need the technology for manure handling,
for genetics, for the meat cutting, that sort of thing. The
history is that once they digest all of this and they get their
industry up, then they will start to try to export their pork
to us.
So, I think their endgame is to ultimately dominate in the
long-term.
Senator Cochran. Well, if you were serving as a member
of the U.S. Senate, would you consider this to be in the
public interest of the United States or not?
Mr. Slane. No, I would not. There are four problems here as
I see it in approving this transaction. The number one problem
is that if this transaction is approved, how do you stop other
Chinese companies from coming in and buying our food processing
companies in the United States?
For example, COFCO is the largest grain trading company in
China, and they are a state-owned entity. They have publicly
announced that they are seeking acquisitions of U.S. companies.
So, if this transaction with Smithfield gets approved, I do
not know how you stop other state-owned and state-controlled
Chinese companies from coming in and buying our food companies.
The second thing that offends me is they can buy our
companies but we cannot buy their companies. And, you know,
there is just something really fundamentally wrong with that;
and I think that the endgame is to dominate our markets. That
bothers me.
The final thing is that what we are doing here, if this is
approved, is you are importing a radically different economic
system in a system in which we espouse free-market, and that is
a potential for conflict, as I see it.
For those reasons, I would be opposed.
Senator Cochran. Do you know of anybody who is for it?
Mr. Slane. I am sorry, sir.
Senator Cochran. Do you know of anybody who is in favor of
the transaction being approved?
Mr. Slane. Yes.
Ms. Haley. Two here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cochran. You are outnumbered.
Mr. Slane. Mr. Pope has no choice, and I think Dr.
Slaughter supports it.
Senator Cochran. Well, I am going to give them an
opportunity to tell us why this is in the public interest of
the United States and why we should recommend approval, or do
we have the power to decide as a political body of the United
States that it should not be permitted to be approved.
Mr. Pope. Senator, I hope you are not expecting me to tell
you the powers of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. legislative
process. I will leave that to you smart guys up there as I am
just a meat processor in the business world.
But, yes, I clearly am in favor of this transaction. I
think it is good for America. I think this is the opportunity
that America has been looking for to import jobs.
There has been a discussion for the last 20 years about
jobs being exported out of this country into China and things
made in China and shipped back into the United States.
This is the exact reverse of that, that is, China looking
to another market to help feed its growing demand and
realizing, as the other witness indicated, they have a protein
shortage and Asia is likely to be protein short for a very long
time.
China consumes 50 percent of all the world's poor
production, and Asia consumes substantially more of the
remaining, a substantial proportion of the remaining 50
percent. That is the area of the world where pork is the number
one protein. Pork is number three in the United States. People
in China eat substantially more per capita than they do in the
United States.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the U.S. to do what it
does best which is to produce agricultural products that ship
those around the world. This helps with the balance of payments
and trade. This creates jobs. This creates opportunities for
American farmers to grow.
This seems like all the things, if you were writing down
what would be positive, this is all the good things in life,
what America is trying to do. So, thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate
Senator Cochran's line of questioning.
For Mr. Pope and Commissioner Slane, do you think USDA
should be involved in the CFIUS review of this proposed deal?
Mr. Pope.
Mr. Pope. We have absolutely no objection to that and
support that process.
Senator Brown. Okay. Mr. Slane.
Mr. Slane. Senator, I would totally support that. It is one
of the weaknesses of CFIUS.
Senator Brown. One of the weaknesses is in that you do not
expect that CFIUS will decide to include USDA in the process?
Mr. Slane. As you know, they are not included now so my
hope is that they would become a permanent member of CFIUS and
maybe some of the other agencies as well.
Senator Brown. Especially if it is a food safety issue?
Mr. Slane. Right.
Senator Brown. Mr. Pope, we know this is a good deal for
shareholders. We know the long-term benefits for workers and
farmers and I heard what you said to Senator Cochran's
question. But, the long-term benefits for workers and farmers
and American consumers to me are not so clear but let me ask
you something. Financially, what is at stake for you personally
and for top management of Smithfield in this deal?
Mr. Pope. I think we are on record and publicly, I think
there is a public, in our preliminary proxy we filed what the
benefits are to me personally and my senior management team.
So, I certainly stand to benefit from this. I am a shareholder
in Smithfield Foods and have been. I have been with the company
over 30 years and have acquired the ownership shares that I
have over a very long period of time. And so, the company has
done well and so I do stand----
Senator Brown. Could you be more specific whatever you said
publicly and share that with the committee?
Mr. Pope. I do not have those numbers right here in front
of me but I will be glad, if it is okay with this Committee, I
will be glad to make sure you get the exact accurate numbers. I
will be glad to get that back to you.
Senator Brown. Could you give us a range? I cannot believe
that you have not heard some of these numbers that will benefit
you and other top management at least in some range that you
could share with the Committee?
Mr. Pope. Well, I certainly have, I certainly am a
significant shareholder. So, my shareholdings, I am going to
receive the $34 a share that every other Smithfield Foods
shareholder is going to receive; and as well, I have some
equity awards that have been awarded over a very long period of
time; and finally, I have got a retention.
Shuanghui, in order to make sure that the management team
stays in place, is putting in place retention agreements with
our top executives to ensure that nothing changes. And, so
those are payable over a three-year period and not payable if
the management team does not stay.
So, what I am going to alternately receive is still subject
to the management team staying in place and continuing to run
this company.
Senator Brown. All right. You said something, Mr. Pope,
that I liked, the recognition that American business, it has
almost become maybe the first time in economic history, as far
as I can see, where the business plan of a large number of
companies in one country, our country, has to shut down
production in the U.S., move production to a foreign country,
China, then sell back into the original country.
I do not know that has happened that I had seen in world
history to any appreciable degree. You are saying that you are
sort of the flip side of that. I am not sure that I quite
follow that.
But talk to us, and this question is for both Mr. Pope and
Commissioner Slane. How likely is it that the adoption of
Smithfield processing technologies will allow Shuanghui to
export pork to the United States?
Mr. Pope. Well, let me be----
Senator Brown. I am sorry. Because what I am concerned of,
as Chairwoman Stabenow is, of, you know, what can happen with
the technology and that it does not create American jobs. It
really goes the other way.
So if you would discuss that and then Mr. Slane.
Mr. Pope. Senator, I think that is a, the concern that so
many have posed is what is the opportunity that Chinese
product, which some consider to be of a lesser standard, are
going to be imported back into this country.
I was very clear in my testimony that this is all about
exports. This is not about imports. In fact, Chinese product
cannot be imported into the United States today and they had no
plans and no applications in place and I have the highest
respect for what the U.S. Department of Agriculture does in
this country.
In any event if any application was ever done, all of that
product would be subject to USDA standards just as products
manufactured in the United States are today.
I would not suspect it would have the same level of
scrutiny that our product have manufactured in this country
today; but I want to be clear, there is no discussion about
that. There is a huge protein deficit in that part of the
world. So, this is not about exporting product from China to
the U.S. It is about exporting U.S. product to China.
Senator Brown. Well, it may not be today but we have seen,
this is a different issue but it is also not. We have seen the
pharmaceuticals, contaminated pharmaceutical ingredients coming
from China to the United States in the form of heparin and in
death as a result.
We have seen other kinds, just not the same kind of respect
for food safety, drug safety, toys, paint, lead-based paint on
toys all the kinds of back-and-forth sales from that country
that have not observed the same kinds of standards we have.
Mr. Slane, if you would comment on what Mr. Pope said.
Chairwoman Stabenow. It has to be very short.
Mr. Slane. Yes. In the short term, you are going to see,
you are not going to see any imports, and I think that the
long-term endgame here is to dramatically increase production
in China. The overriding principle of the Chinese is food
security, and they do that through self-sufficiency. They do
not want to be dependent upon a foreign country for their food.
So, their endgame is to get their production up to a certain
point. And historically when you look at steel, toys, paper,
all kinds of other industries, they start overproducing and
then they will start to export.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Pope, Smithfield voluntarily agreed to undergo a
review--I emphasize voluntarily--by the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States, i.e., CFIUS, a marvelous
acronym.
At the time what were your expectations of the CFIUS
review, and I would urge you to respond with regard to their
very rigorous interagency review to determine the effect on
National security. What was your expectation of this?
Mr. Pope. Senator, we feel like we have a fully transparent
process here and we are more than open to review by anybodies
and any agencies within the U.S. government, and so we
voluntarily did make the submission to CFIUS to ensure that
they did the review, to ensure that there was not a National
security issue associated with this.
I do not want to opine in terms of how CFIUS is going to
conduct that review. It is done in a confidential way, and they
certainly do not share with me what they are thinking. Maybe
you have a better understanding of that.
Senator Roberts. Yes. I was going to say that really falls
under our oversight responsibility. Perhaps that should be the
focus of another hearing.
Did you ever expect that the Senate Agriculture Committee,
CFIUS two, would hold a hearing on the acquisition of
Smithfield Foods and the CFIUS process?
Mr. Pope. Is the question----
Senator Roberts. Did you expect that? I mean, did you
expect that this Committee would hold a hearing on the
acquisition?
Mr. Pope. I do not know that I contemplated that, no.
Senator Roberts. Did you realize you were the victim of a
Chinese Communist plot?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pope. Senator, to this moment I am not sure I
understand I am the victim of a communist plot.
Senator Roberts. The control of your company would somehow
allow China to control the pork industry, were you aware of
that?
Mr. Pope. Senator, I was not aware of that.
Senator Roberts. Well, they own our debt so, you know, you
have got to be careful here.
Given the high demand for safe and nutritious pork and pork
products in China, which you have underscored and others have
as well and even agreed to by the last two witnesses, what will
be the impact on the acquisition for American pork producers
and processors?
I am talking about growth here. Can you be specific? How
can others benefit from this?
Mr. Pope. Senator, that is almost the cornerstone of the
rationale for this transaction for America. The China, it is
feeding the population with high quality products from the
United States. For the U.S. producer, this is and opportunity
once again to grow.
We, as an industry, have struggled with growth in this
country. Americans are eating less pork today than they were 15
years ago. So, without the opportunity to grow outside the
United States, there is no opportunity for the U.S. pork
producer to expand.
So, the U.S. farmer does not have an opportunity, does not
have an opportunity to grow his business. This is it to the
largest market in the world.
Senator Roberts. If China is unable to buy American pork
either through this acquisition or other means, where will they
turn to meet their population's demand for an additional high
quality pork?
Mr. Pope. Senator, they would look to, they can look to
other countries. They could look to----
Senator Roberts. What countries?
Mr. Pope. They could look to Brazil. They could look to
Canada, potentially into Western Europe although pork
production is very expensive in that continent. And so, the
U.S. is the natural place. We have enormous respect and that is
a compliment to the U.S. farmer.
Senator Roberts. What about the consumer in regards to
prices at the grocery store in regards to pork products?
Mr. Pope. Senator, was the question about the U.S.
consumer?
Senator Roberts. American consumers.
Mr. Pope. I do not expect there to be a significant impact
of this on U.S. consumers because we have the ability to expand
this business and meet that need.
Senator Roberts. I have one question here for Dr.
Slaughter. Welcome back. Moving beyond Smithfield in terms of
the overall landscape for food and, to some extent, beverage
companies, there has been a lot of talk about this setting an
example and then we will have an avalanche of foreign
investment here.
Are there other iconic American brands and companies with
foreign direct investment? If so, what are a few examples.
Mr. Slaughter. Sure, Senator. Think of automobiles, think
of information technology. So, those are two industries that
have long had a tremendous amount of inward investment into the
United States and strong U.S. companies have undertaken a lot
of investment outwards to the rest of the world.
Senator Roberts. Maybe Chrysler and Fiat in Michigan?
Mr. Slaughter. Yes, great example. Think of the Apple
iPhone that I have got in my briefcase. You know, designed by
Apple in California, assembled in China is what it says right
now. IT is a great example of an industry where the flow of
ideas----
Senator Roberts. What about agriculture? We have three
seconds here.
Mr. Slaughter. Agriculture as well. So, I was like from my
hometown Cargill a great global engaged company that sells a
lot around the world.
Senator Roberts. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just an observation or two before I get to my questions.
You know, one of the things that American agriculture is facing
is that 95 percent of the world's population does not live
here. They live someplace else in the world.
You look at a market like China, it is a growing market,
dramatically growing as a matter of fact, not only a lot of
people but as their standard of living continues to increase,
one of the first things they will look to is a better food
supply. So, they look to the United States.
The other thing about China is that if there is a trade
imbalance relative to agriculture, that is in our favor. We
sell them more than they sell to us. Why? Because of some of
the things that were mentioned today.
I look at this transaction and I think, well, could they
move production to China. Well, they have got a water problem,
a very serious water problem. If they cannot get water, they
cannot very well raise corn.
I just think the problems of moving production are too
great for China to overcome over the long-term. So, I do not
see much possibility there.
Could they move processing to China? Well, they certainly
have a labor force but the product is here; and if they cannot
raise the product in China, it makes more sense to come here,
find the product, find the country where it can be grown. That
is here in the United States.
But, I think here is the problem that we are struggling
with and the reality is, just to be very candid, there is not
really a legal mechanism in place that really reviews this much
or that could likely stop it. I appreciate you submitted to
CFIUS. Quite honestly, the standard is such that there just is
not much that can be done here.
I suppose Congress could act; but if our experience with
the Farm Bill is any indication, that is probably not going to
work out too well. You know, the Senate might do something but
you kind of wonder what would happen in the House. The House
could do something, you kind of wonder what would happen in the
Senate.
But here is the problem in dealing with this transaction; I
think for us and for the people that we represent. There is
something really offensive about the reality that they can do
this here but a very aggressive company like Smithfield, which
has kind of redesigned pork production in the United States,
could not do this in China.
Mr. Pope, that is not a hard question. It is not. You know
for a fact you could not do in China what they are doing here
with Smithfield. The Chinese regulators would laugh at you if
you said, well, I will just buy Shuanghui; and to us, that is
just very, very difficult.
So, how do we do something here that is realistic, that
really gets to the essence of what I think our people are
concerned about and that is; is the food supply going to be
protected? At the end of the day, is China going to pick the
Chinese versus America because they will now control what
percentage of the U.S. pork production? It will be a very large
percentage.
So, how do we ensure our people back home that pork will be
available, that it will be affordable? We will still have the
kind of controls that I think they hope we will have.
Mr. Pope, hard question for you. But how do I go back home
and tell Nebraskans, do not worry, this is a good transaction
for you?
Mr. Pope. Senator, you are right. I know it is troubling
with respect to the openness of the U.S. marketplace versus
other countries in the world who have different approval
processes. So, I will not speak to whether we could buy
Shuanghui or not. I have not tried so I would just be
speculating.
However, I think there is an important thing here. We have
a strong food safety program under the USDA, the HACCP programs
we have inside our plans, integrity of the brands, and the
sophistication of the management teams we have in place in
these businesses.
We are going to protect these brands and we are going to
protect this in business. And, if we do not, the U.S.
inspectors are going to do it anyway.
This is a highly regulated industry. The U.S. government,
tight inspection protocols are in place on every pound of meat
we produced in every plant, and those on the agriculture
Committee, you know that. You know how tight those inspection
processes are.
That is why people around the world take such comfort in
the USDA stamp on product that they receive, and they are going
to continue to have that assurance that anything, regardless of
where the ownership is, this company has got to operate under
the laws of the United States.
We are not operating under the laws of China. We are
operating under the auspices of the USDA and the food
inspection process and our own developed HACCP programs beyond
that.
So, I think to your constituents back home, it is the same
old Smithfield. Nothing is going to change. This is going to be
an American company. We are going to continue to operate like
an American company, and we are going to continue to protect
these brands.
The conversations I have had with those people at
Shuanghui, this is one of the things that they are trying to
buy. They want us to help them develop those food safety
protocols and help to protect their food supply.
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. I am going to start with Dr. Haley and
Commissioner Slane. Do you agree with Mr. Pope's answer to
Senator Robert's question about the benefits of U.S. pork
producers and processors to expand and to grow domestically as
a result of this transaction?
Ms. Haley. No, I do not. I do not think Shuanghui is buying
Smithfield for its pork. All of Smithfield's production is
about three percent of what China produces. Shuanghui is buying
Smithfield for its brand name and to assuage the horrible
reputation that China has so far as food production goes and
exports of food.
Smithfield has gene technology which is a strategically
important industry for China. This acquisition is bolstered by
indigenous innovation policies because China wants to move up
into value-added production. Shuanghui already is in value
added production as regards China.
Senator Grassley. So, now are you speaking to the point,
though, that you think it will expand American production?
Ms. Haley. I think we will be producing more pork, a steady
line of pigs will be going to China but I also think that there
are going to be other side effects. For example, competitors
will now be dealing with a Shuanghui Smithfield that is as
inscrutable as any other Chinese company, any sort of strategic
information will not be made public, for example. It will go
through that morass of Chinese dissemination. Competitors will
be dealing with----
Senator Grassley. I think you have answered my question and
I would like to get Mr. Slane.
Ms. Haley. Okay. Sorry.
Senator Grassley. Then I want to get into some other
things. Go ahead.
Mr. Slane. Senator, last year the Chinese consumed just
under 120 billion pounds of pork. They imported 1.5 billion
pounds, a little over 1 percent. Smithfield exported 1.2
billion pounds of pork. Smithfield has the capability to supply
the import needs of pork to make up the difference in the
Chinese economy without any other U.S. pork producer
participating.
Senator Grassley. It is my understanding four producers in
the United States or processors control 74 percent of the
market. So, I am always concerned about antitrust and
competition issues.
This would be to any of you that want to answer. Do you
have any concerns that the transaction could increase anti-
competitive and predatory business practices in the pork
industry domestically?
Ms. Haley. Well, I think it is going to be very difficult
for competitors because they are not going to be able, in this
very tightly controlled industry, they are not going to be able
to decipher what one major company is doing. Yes, it will.
Mr. Slane. Senator, how does an American company compete
with a company, a Chinese company that has no cost of capital,
that has enormous subsidies made available to them; and in
effect, American companies are not competing with a Chinese
company but with the Chinese government and they cannot win
that competition.
Ms. Haley. That is right. And, the Chinese government has
come out publicly and said that. They said we encourage those
acquisitions which translated means we subsidize and facilitate
those transactions.
Senator Grassley. Well, Dr. Slaughter, you had a different
point of view in your testimony on that. You obviously disagree
with them. I would like to have you convinced me when we
thought a few years ago that the Chinese, whatever, CNOOC or
whatever the oil company is should not buy Unical because we
thought it was against our national interests, and maybe even
our National security interest.
Since food is such an important part of National security
why this might not be a problem from that point of view. And
you said that the Chinese government does not have much to do
with this small, you said small company in China.
Mr. Slaughter. So, I think, first of all, Senator, I think
that CFIUS's review of this transaction is entirely warranted.
I served on CFIUS, in fact, during the time of that particular
transaction when I served in the government before.
The interagency process works well in CFIUS. I think that
this is a transaction, given its novel nature, where precisely
a careful look at CFIUS makes sense.
Second, I agree a lot with what Commissioner Slane and Dr.
Haley have said about the challenges of growing food in China.
Although, I gently would disagree and say the major goals for
the Chinese government here is to maintain social stability,
given the demands of their population for safe and cleanly
produced food.
Senator Grassley. So, you said you do not think the Chinese
government had much to do with this company that is buying
Smithfield; but on the other hand, the Chinese government is
very concerned about social cohesion and all that sort of
thing.
So, how do you know they are not pushing the company to buy
Smithfield and so the government has got an involvement in it,
the Chinese government has and involvement in it?
Mr. Slaughter. So, the new leaders in China today have been
very explicit about trying to have what they call more balanced
and harmonious economic growth focused less on exports, more on
meeting the needs of the households and families in China. And,
I view this transaction as consistent with that effort to try
to bring cleaner growth to China.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you and
the Ranking Member Cochran for having this really important
hearing. This is something we have all heard about for a while
and, you know, we are concerned, the American public is
concerned so it is good to have the discussion.
I think all of us are really concerned that you have a huge
company in the sense of controlling a good part of the market
and then again what is that going to be the effect on
consumers, what is that going to be the effect on the American
worker is the bottom line.
Tell me, Mr. Pope, my understanding of the reason that
China wants to do this is in the sense that, as has been
alluded to, they need protein. They need the pork. If right now
they do not have the grain to do that over there, it takes four
or five pounds of grain to make a pound of pork so it makes
sense to raise the pork where the grain is at. Is that true?
Mr. Pope.
Mr. Pope. Senator, I think that is exactly true. That is
not any different than the way that pork and meat is produced
in this company. Meat is largely produced where the grain is
and in China has had a policy of attempting, as many countries
have, to be self-sufficient in feeding their population.
However, I think they have concluded that is going to be a
difficult process; and one solution to that is to import the
product.
Senator Boozman. Again, like I say, I am just trying to
understand their reasoning. So, they send it back, you know, in
the sense a lot of it goes back, perhaps, I would assume it
would. But again, our producers backfill what goes back
theoretically and you sell more grain, you sell more pigs. Is
that too simple of an understanding?
Mr. Pope. Well, I think our producers--and some are in the
room here today with me--have overwhelmingly supported this.
The producers see this----
Senator Boozman. That is a good point. And again, I have
visited with some of the large producers also. And, where are
they at? I mean, are our large producers, small producers, are
they for this or against it or?
Mr. Pope. Senator, I do not believe that I have gotten any
feedback from any producer who is opposed to this. They are
overwhelmingly supportive of this. It is the opportunity to
grow again. I do not know of any producer who is opposed to
this today.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Slane, Dr. Haley, have you met with
any of our producers? Do you know if they are for or against
this?
Mr. Slane. I have not talked to any, Senator.
Senator Boozman. That would probably be a good idea.
The other thing too is that began to me in the hearing we
are drifting into all kinds of things.
Dr. Haley, I share your concern with food safety; and yet
if we are not doing a good job in that regard because we have
got all kinds of stuff coming in here now; and again, I am not
saying I am supporting or against it. I am just trying to find
the information.
But, there is a lot of product coming in here right now and
we needed to do a better job of that than we do.
Commissioner Slane, I do not understand in the sense, you
know, that if your argument is that we should not do this,
allow this to be done here because if we cannot do it over
there. I mean there are countries that we deal with that we
cannot buy property in and yet we allow them to buy property
here. I mean, there are all kinds of other situations like that
comes about.
I have great fear of the Chinese, you know, as you are
alluding to in the sense, I have traveled in Africa a lot and
understand, you know, some of the methods that are used. But,
apart from that, that is really not a very good argument, is
it?
Mr. Slane. Only in the extent that we should have the same
opportunity in these other countries to acquire their companies
and there is just something fundamentally wrong economically in
not allowing this. And, our commission recommended that CFIUS
be modified in that we reject applications where we cannot buy
that same company in that country.
Senator Boozman. Right. And again, I understand that and,
like I say, to me that is kind of a separate deal in the sense
that is a huge problem that we have got in many countries
throughout the world.
The other thing I would like to ask about, if you are
knowledgeable, is I am told that as far as, you know, this
being the rocket science as far as the pork production that it
is pretty easy.
I used to have a bunch of cows and, you know, worked the
genetics hard that way. I mean, this is an industry that is a
pretty stable industry that the access to genetics and things
like that, if you want to obtain it, I mean, there is not a
great mystery in the feed mix or this or that. Is that true or
false?
Mr. Pope. Senator, I think that, in terms of technology, I
think essentially what we do, we do not have any patents. It is
commercially available.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and began, thank
you for having the hearing. I think this is very helpful.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate you all coming in and answering our questions.
I think one of the issues with this acquisition, we are
probably not going to see a month from now or a year from now
any visible impact on the Nation's livestock industry, our
Nation's food supply or food safety for that matter, but I
think we need to look at these in terms of what the impact will
be five years down the road, 10 years down the road, how the
Nation's food supply might be impacted, our food safety might
be impacted.
You have 20 percent of the world's population living in
China. So obviously, food security is a high priority,
especially since only 8 percent of the world's crop land is in
China. China is going to have to look beyond its borders to
ensure a steady and stable food supply.
But, we have got to ensure that China's food security and
adequate supply does not come at the expense of ours here in
the United States.
I want to ask a question. Mr. Pope, you had mentioned, and
I think the quote is, it will be the same old Smithfield only
better, and that Shuanghui is committed to maintaining our
operations, our headquarters, our relationships with producers,
our labor contracts, and our quality brands with the highest
reputation for food safety.
I think we are all encouraged to hear that as Smithfield
has been a great asset to the American food supply in the past
decades. But, I am wondering if maybe you could elaborate on
any assurances that have been given to business partners,
producers, employees, consumers that Smithfield will be, in
fact, as you put it, the same old Smithfield.
Mr. Pope. Sure. Thank you, Senator. I would love to address
that. Shuanghui has been very forthcoming in terms of their
commitments in their public statements on the announcement of
this deal of their commitment.
So, they are well aware that this is a large acquisition
going on in the United States, and they are well aware of the
public overview and concern about this transaction. So, they
are very knowledgeable and very thoughtful about what they are
committing to realizing that they will be held accountable of
that.
The fact that the overwhelming support of so many different
organizations and participants in the pork industry have come
forward with this should give you some assurance that Shuanghui
is going to live up to their commitments.
I have known these folks for several years. They have
always lived up to their commitments to us. They are the leader
in their country. They are partnering with the leader and the
largest pork producer in the world, with the largest pork
consuming country in the world, with the largest processor in
that country. The marriage is sort of very natural and very
automatic.
In terms of commitments, I am very grateful for the fact
that people at the UFCW, the unions have stepped forward and
said we understand. They are going to honor our contract.
Our producers in the industry, of the hog of producing
industry, many have stepped forward and said we salute this
transaction as well as many of our competitors in this industry
have also come forward saluting this transaction as good for
this industry for the long-term.
I have got over 30 years with Smithfield, and so I have an
enormous investment emotionally in this company, and I am going
to make sure, I am still going to continue as the CEO of this
company, and I am going to have a hand in the future in the way
this company continues to operate, and I realize we are going
to be held accountable to the scrutiny of the American public
and the regulatory process in this country, and I am very
comfortable.
Shuanghui 100 percent endorses that; and in fact, the North
Carolina pork producers just today were meeting with Chairman
Wan in China and just put out a press release in the last few
hours complementing their meeting with him and his commitment
as the chairman of Shuanghui, the commitment to maintain the
food safety standards that Smithfield has been placed today.
So, as good as an assurance as anyone can have, they are
making public statements on the record that they are going to
maintain the management team and our operations and our food
safety standards.
Senator Thune. Mr. Slane's testimony identified Shuanghui
as being a, and I quote, Chinese state-controlled company, end
quote. In your testimony, you state that Shuanghui is a private
holding company based in Hong Kong.
Would you agree that Shuanghui is a state-controlled
company?
Mr. Pope. No, I would not agree, Senator, that it is a
state-controlled company. I think that is fairly easy to
research. So, I would just ask Mr. Slane to do the research and
maybe he just got some bad information.
Senator Thune. Mr. Slane.
Mr. Slane. Chairman Wan is a high-ranking Member of the
Chinese Communist Party and a 15-year veteran of the National
People's Congress. He was appointed to the position by the
Chinese Communist Party and he answers to the Chinese Communist
Party; and if he does not do what they say, they will remove
him or worse.
In addition, he controls the majority of stock and the
voting rights of Shuanghui; and finally, Senator, and the Bank
of China, which is controlled by the Chinese government, is
financing the cash, the 4.7 billion, in this transaction. The
Bank of China does not finance any transactions unless they are
told to by the Chinese Government.
By any definition, this is a state-controlled company.
Ms. Haley. May I add two more things as to why it is state-
controlled?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Very quickly.
Ms. Haley. Its subsidiary was listed on the Shenzhen stock
exchange. You do not get a listing like that without some kind
of state support.
Several government people have come out and said openly
that they support this acquisition. That does not happen unless
there is something else going on, some other influence.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Senator Heitkamp.
Senator Heitkamp. Madam Chairman, I apologize for coming in
and out. I had another significant meeting to my State and
wanted a chance to listen to all the questioning, and I know
that a lot of the ground that I wanted to cover has already
been covered.
I just have one quick question of Mr. Pope. You know, it is
always good to get a lot of commitments on the front when you
are negotiating a deal and when you want to make people happy
and you want to come before a panel like this and say things
are going to go well.
But, what are the legal requirements that contracts be
maintained, that all of the things that have been promised will
actually come to fruition now and into the future or is this
just part of what we are talking about now and tomorrow after
the acquisition is finalized those commitments go away?
Mr. Pope. Senator, many of those commitments that I made
reference to our legally binding contracts under U.S. law. So,
they have no choice but to honor the contracts we have with our
union employees as well as the 2000 contracts we have with our
contract growers. We have those in place and they have no
choice but to honor those contracts.
Senator Heitkamp. No contract is permanent. So, what is the
termination dates on those contracts?
Mr. Pope. Obviously, Senator, those contracts have varying
termination dates. But, the fact is that Shuanghui realizes
that an important asset they are buying here is the management
team in place, our employees in place, and the relationship we
have with our growers and our suppliers.
They would not be paying a 30 percent premium to the market
without realizing that they are getting a valuable asset and
the discussion that was being held earlier this year about the
potential breakup of this company into parts by other
interested parties created some of this interest by Shuanghui
and other interested parties because of the value of his
vertically integrated model.
Senator Heitkamp. Can you state with any legal certainty
that in 10 years you can come back here and say contracts
similar to the contracts that you have today with your growers
will be in tact and that you will have union contracts in 10
years?
Mr. Pope. Senator, obviously, it is difficult for me to
project the future. However, as certain as I can be about
anything, I am virtually positive we will have the contracts
with our contract growers because we do not have a business
without them. Our contract growers are, one of the most
important assets this company holds is the ability to work with
power producers. That is a key asset. Beyond the brands that
the company owns, that is probably the second most important
asset we have.
The union, the relationship we have with United Food and
Commercial Workers I would ask you to ask them themselves, they
have come up so much supportive of this. They are highly
confident that the company will continue to recognize them as
the unions in place and have contracts that are favorable to
their employees or to their workforce.
Senator Heitkamp. You know, not to belabor the point, but I
think the concern here is that in anything like this that is
going to have a fair level of controversy, as you can see, from
the panel today there is always a lot of commitments that are
made and, you know, we like to envision that in 10 years we
will come back and say we were right. It all worked out. And, I
certainly hope that is the case.
But, just be aware that there is a fair amount of cynicism
and concern about this transaction, and part of that is borne
out of concern for what is going to happen to the intellectual
property of this company.
As you have mentioned over and over again, the quality of
the work that you do, the intellectual product, the know-how
that you have, once that has been acquired as an asset of a
Chinese company, will we then see that basically undermine pork
production in our country. That is the concern.
You know, this ground has been plowed and I thank the
Chairwoman for having the hearing but again I hope in 10 years
you are right.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
I want to talk a little bit more about exports because a
shining star for us in the United States is agricultural
exports. We have for every 1 billion of dollars that we invest
we have about 5000 jobs created. So, we have a surplus in terms
of exports in agriculture which is very, very important.
Pork is very export dependent. You need to export, and
right now if China opened its doors and did not apply illegal
and unscientific food safety standards, you could just export
to them. Create a lot more jobs. I think that would be
terrific.
Other producers, independent producers that are configured
differently than Smithfield could do that right now but that is
not what we are talking about.
My question is, now that Shuanghui will have access to
Smithfield's production technology and genetics and improved
food safety practices, is it possible--I am sure they are going
to increase their own efficiency. They said that is why they
are willing to pay a premium for the company, and Japan sits
right next door which is our largest export market from the
United States.
Why would China not export to Japan?
Mr. Pope.
Mr. Pope. Senator, that is a very good question, and
certainly it is a concern that the industry has is Japan is a
very important market for the pork industry, and you are right
again about the importance of exports to the health of the pork
industry.
I like to say exporters have become the lifeblood of the
pork industry; and when we do not have sizable exports, the
industry suffers significantly as a result of that.
Today, China could and does, and does, export into Japan
very limited amounts. There are very, very tight food safety
standards between, in Japan with respect to Chinese product;
and so they have to have plant approvals. I am sure you and
your staff know that.
There has been very little but there is some. And so, the
thing that gives me comfort is the economics. Pork is
substantially more expensive in China than it is in the U.S. It
probably surprises many people to hear that. Pork prices are 50
percent higher in China. It is not a cheaper market. It is a
higher market.
They have an economic disadvantage in shipping to Japan
because they do not have the grain. They have got to import the
grain. The grain has got to be grown someplace else. It has to
be shipped to China. They do not have anywhere near the
productivity in their herds and so that the pigs do not stay
alive.
It is much more expensive for their economic disadvantage.
And, the U.S. has an economic advantage in selling to Japan,
and the deficit that exists in China today I think is a very
real deficit but I think it is an opportunity for U.S. exports.
I think they are looking, China is looking that this is an
opportunity to feed their people, to satisfy the civil issue
that they have got to solve in giving safe food to their
people. It is not about an opportunity to import product and
then exported back out to Japan.
Chairwoman Stabenow. But again, Mr. Pope, they could feed
their people by opening their markets to the great American
pork products that we have, and of course, they have chosen,
and I understand they would like your brand. It is an excellent
brand.
One of the concerns or questions I have is whether or not
your brand which will be put on Chinese pork which has been
less than stellar is going to be a problem for your brand down
the road.
But, I wonder if Dr. Haley and Commissioner Slane would
like to talk about the economics of all of this.
Ms. Haley. Well, I do not think--as I said before, that
China or Shuanghui bought Smithfield for the pork. Smithfield's
production is just 3 percent of Chinese production. But what I
see happening is what is happening in other industries such as
paper, steel, glass, solar. We spent the last five years
looking at these industries.
Higher value-added manufacturing will move to China; and by
that I mean, processed products, and they will use the
Smithfield brand name. We will continue to export pork, a
steady stream will go on to China with all sorts of negative
externalities such as pollution mounting, perhaps soy and other
interrelated feed industries will have their prices going up as
well.
We will be exporting more pork but we will be importing
more processed foods from China. So, we will be exporting more
commodities as we have been doing. We currently import 560
percent more technologically advanced products from China than
we export to it.
So, we will be importing their processed foods and we will
be exporting our commodity. And, as we will be importing more
than we will be exporting, our trade deficit will continue to
grow.
China is not seeing this as just one acquisition. Shuanghui
has government support. These going-out companies have
government support and they see Smithfield as a foot in the
door. There are going to be very many acquisitions in
agriculture. I have spoken to people in China and this
acquisition is being very carefully monitored. There are other
companies that are waiting in the wings to buy more American
companies; and so, this is a weighty decision and I think this
really has to be looked at very carefully as to what we want to
do with the agricultural sector in this country.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you.
Commissioner Slane.
Mr. Slane. Senator, I think it is important to note that
Shuanghui as production and distribution systems in Japan and
South Korea so they are obviously penetrating that market; and
with the subsidies from the Chinese government, I think
eventually long-term they could undermine U.S. exports to those
markets.
Ms. Haley. Yes.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. My time is up. If there are
other members that have questions.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to take advantage of Mr. Slaughter's
expertise while we are here and ask a question. I would like to
hear, in your words, what you see as the long-term implications
of the merger and acquisition on the American food
manufacturing industry. And to be more precise, is this
acquisition going to be a job creator for American workers?
Mr. Slaughter. Thank you, Senator. It has every potential
to do so; and if I could echo Mr. Pope's response to your
question earlier about the long-term, the one dimension in
which I hope he is wrong is that in five to ten years
Smithfield does not have 46,000 employees in America, they have
56-or 66,000.
Most of the growth in the world is outside of the United
States. I will echo the Chairman Stabenow's nice framing. The
number I will give economically is 22 million. There are over
22 million under and unemployed Americans in America today.
We need to try to create for the next five to ten years
approximately 20,000,000 new jobs in America, and a lot of
those jobs are ideally going to come from American workers and
their businesses being connected to opportunities in world
markets.
Yes, there is a lot of legitimate concerns about the
economic development of China but I think the engagement of
China and the rules-based, transparent policymaking process is
critical to try to allow American workers like those at
Smithfield and throughout a lot of other industries to be
connected to that growth in China.
Senator Thune. You, in your testimony, mentioned foreign
direct investment in the long-term as being boom to the
American economy. I am wondering if you see any situation in
which foreign direct investment might be a detriment or be an
untenable risk to the American economy.
Mr. Slaughter. So, anytime there is a foreign investment
that raises a legitimate National security concern for America,
that foreign investment should be looked at closely if not
forbidden; and again, I think the CFIUS process has decades of
being a well-run and well-managed process for reviewing those
kinds of National security concerns.
My thought in that interesting question is clearly
individual transactions sometimes do not work well for the
parties involved; but when you look at the clear historical
records for America over the decades, inward foreign direct
investment like this particular transaction has generated large
benefits for American workers in the broader economy.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I think this has
been a very important and very thoughtful hearing and very
informative. I appreciate everyone being here today.
We have a number of issues that have been raised and I
think, from my perspective I remain concerned about the
adequacy of our government's review process for these
acquisitions of our food supply.
I really believe this is a precedent-setting case. I am
concerned when Dr. Haley talks about more waiting in the wings
to come which just says to me that we need to be thoughtful on
behalf of American consumers and producers in the broader
economy to make sure that we are looking at the adequacy of the
review process and what is in the best interest of our country.
I want to remind the members that we are going to be with
the Treasury Department, we are going to be going across the
hall now to meet with those that are involved with this review
process and we will have questions for them as well.
Any additional questions for the record should be submitted
to the Committee Clerk by five business days from today, that
is 5 p.m. on Wednesday July 17.
This is important. I hope that we will continue to see a
strong, robust pork industry in America and that I have no
doubt that our standards will remain high in this country, and
we certainly want all the right things to happen. But I think
there are legitimate issues here about what this is all about
and the long-term implications for what will happen to the
industry.
Thank you very much for joining us.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
JULY 10, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
JULY 10, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
JULY 10, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]