[Senate Hearing 117-542]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-542

                    NOMINATION OF DOUGLAS J. McKALIP

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                 on the

                             NOMINATION OF

        DOUGLAS J. McKALIP, TO BE CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR,
                  UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                               __________


                             JULY 28, 2022

                               __________

                                     
                                     



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







            Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

55-681--PDF               WASHINGTON : 2024












                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

                      RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      BEN SASSE, Nebraska
                                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming

                    Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director

                Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director

                                  (II)











                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee 
  on Finance.....................................................     1
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho......................     2

                         ADMINISTRATION NOMINEE

McKalip, Douglas J., nominated to be Chief Agricultural 
  Negotiator, United States Trade Representative, Executive 
  Office of the President, Washington, DC........................     4

               ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Crapo, Hon. Mike:
    Opening statement............................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
McKalip, Douglas J.:
    Testimony....................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Biographical information.....................................    29
    Responses to questions from committee members................    33
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    49

                             Communication

Association of Equipment Manufacturers...........................    51

                                 (III)










 
                   NOMINATION OF DOUGLAS J. McKALIP,
                  TO BE CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR,
                  UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                                      Committee on Finance,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 
a.m., in Room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron 
Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Stabenow, Cantwell, Cardin, Brown, 
Bennet, Hassan, Cortez Masto, Crapo, Grassley, Thune, Portman, 
Lankford, and Young.
    Also present: Democratic staff: Sally Laing, Chief 
International Trade Counsel; Ian Nicholson, Investigator and 
Nominations Advisor; and Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director. 
Republican staff: James Guiliano, Policy Advisor; and Gregg 
Richard, Republican Staff Director.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
             OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    The Chairman. We are now going to turn to the nomination of 
Doug McKalip to serve as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator in 
the Office of the United States Trade Representative. He brings 
vast experience to this job, nearly 30 years of public service, 
including in a variety of roles focused on ag policy and the 
well-being of rural communities in America.
    He is now a top advisor to the Assistant Secretary of 
Agriculture, and Secretary Vilsack on trade, ag safety, 
national security, and other issues. He has held other 
leadership positions at the Department of Agriculture with the 
Domestic Policy Council, and his service there has been 
exemplary. He has a lot of fans on both sides of the committee, 
and his nomination comes at a key time.
    As our nominee knows, our families are understandably 
furious about the proposition that they are paying more for 
groceries and they are getting less. Farmers and ranchers are 
being oppressed by drought and hammered by increased costs. 
Across the world, people are desperate at the prospect of 
widespread hunger as crops fail and basic food items are in 
short supply. War, climate change--all of this is compounded by 
shortsighted trade policies and supply chain disruptions that 
have created fear all over the world about the possibility of a 
21st-century hunger catastrophe.
    The Finance Committee has authority over one key part of 
how we are going to wrestle this crisis to the ground: smart 
trade policy that promotes affordable, abundant food here at 
home and abroad. This policy--no pressure, Mr. Nominee--has got 
to support our farmers and ranchers and allow for maximum 
production by busting through trade barriers and lowering costs 
for key inputs like fertilizer. We also have got to focus on 
opening and expanding export markets to ensure our farmers can 
continue to do what they do best: keeping the world fed. This 
Ag Negotiator position is essential, because we have got to 
insist on the elimination of foreign regulations that hamper 
food distribution wherever it takes place, because--and this is 
what it is all about--that is what you have to do to reduce 
hunger.
    The Ag Trade Negotiator has other responsibilities for 
ensuring American interests in trade agreements. To that point, 
the Trump administration rushed the new USMCA into effect, and 
Canada and Mexico are failing to live up to key commitments. 
For example, Canada is propping up barriers to our dairy 
products. Mexico is unfairly blocking American-grown corn and 
soybeans; pretty much a similar story with respect to China. 
The Trump administration grabbed lots of headlines when it 
introduced a new trade deal, but it failed to set up real 
enforcement and let many of the Chinese Government's key trade 
rip-offs just go unaddressed. China failed to meet its 
commitments to import American agricultural products, only 
buying 58 percent of the total goods and services that it 
agreed to buy in 2021. That is less than it was buying before 
the Trump trade policy and this trade war was launched.
    U.S. farmers are telling us they do not want handouts. They 
want real opportunities to sell their products around the 
world. And as I told the nominee, that can only happen if this 
position and the policies advanced finally lead to a level 
playing field. That is the bottom line.
    The committee is also interested in discussing how our 
farmers and ranchers can benefit from the new Indo-Pacific 
Economic Framework. And, if confirmed, our nominee will play a 
key role in these issues.
    I want to thank our nominee for joining us and for his 
willingness to continue his career in public service. As I 
mentioned, he has been fighting for farmers for decades, and 
farmers and ranchers know of your work. And we appreciate the 
chance to have you here, and we look forward to your answers.
    Senator Crapo?
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the 
appendix.]

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 
                   A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Wyden. And welcome, Mr. 
McKalip, and congratulations on your nomination.
    First let me say I took the opportunity to listen to your 
band, BoxCartel, and you are hitting the right notes there. 
With your trade policy experience, I hope that, if confirmed, 
you will also hit the right notes on improving opportunities 
for our farmers and ranchers.
    America's farmers continue to prove their resilience and 
productivity every day, and will keep doing so. But it is not 
easy. Americans are painfully aware that gas prices are up 42 
percent from a year ago. What fewer people may know is that the 
price for diesel rose by an even greater margin: 68 percent. 
And that hits our farmers hard.
    Back in March, a fourth-generation farmer in Meridian, ID 
explained that the cost of filling up his tractor had doubled 
in a year to $800. However, one bright factor for America's 
farmers right now is exports, with sales of agricultural 
products overseas reaching $177 billion in 2021. America's 
farmers sell more high-quality products to consumers around the 
world than ever before.
    In Idaho, if we kept what our 24,000 farms produced within 
the State, each Idahoan would have to eat 209 slices of bread, 
40 potatoes, 3 pounds of sugar, 2 pounds of cheese, 2 pounds of 
beef, and a cup of beans every single day.
    Fortunately, Idaho's agricultural products also feed the 
Nation and the world, exporting one of every six rows of 
Idaho's potatoes and 50 percent of Idaho's wheat. Nationally, 
one in three acres planted in the United States will be 
exported, but we can sell even more.
    What is holding us back is, again, a misplaced Biden 
administration policy, a moratorium on new trade agreements and 
limited enforcement of existing agreements. The administration 
is crystal clear that it prefers not to pursue real trade 
agreements in favor of something it calls frameworks, which 
lack crucial market access obligations.
    This is confusing, since market access is the main problem 
our farmers and ranchers face. A lot of our potential trading 
partners maintain high agricultural tariffs and regulatory 
measures that are essentially a guise for protectionism. We 
need to tear them down.
    For example, India applies an average agricultural tariff 
of 36 percent. It also applies a number of non-science-based 
restrictions on U.S. agriculture, such as unreasonable GMO 
certifications on apples, potatoes, soybeans, wheat, and other 
crops.
    If America wants to sell crops in India, these are exactly 
the types of issues that must be addressed. Moreover, the need 
to find new markets is particularly compelling because we must 
diversify our customer base. China is currently our largest 
agricultural export destination, but we need new markets to 
reduce our dependency and increase our leverage.
    Securing these markets will require more than frameworks 
where the government officials can just talk. It requires 
binding commitments that ensure our farmers can sell. Put 
plainly, our farmers and ranchers deserve our trading partners' 
markets to be open to our commerce, as ours is to theirs. 
Hopefully we can start a conversation today on how to apply our 
nominee's experience and talents toward that goal.
    With that, I look forward to hearing the nominee's 
testimony and his responses to our questions, and I also look 
forward to your next album when that comes out.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Very good. There is no question that the 
music appeal is very powerful.
    Mr. McKalip, welcome. Let's hear from you, and then we will 
have some obligatory questions. But let's go with your opener.

    STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. McKALIP, NOMINATED TO BE CHIEF 
 AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR, UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, 
       EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. McKalip. Thank you, Chair Wyden, and thank you, Ranking 
Member Crapo and members of the committee.
    My name is Doug McKalip, and I am honored to appear before 
you as the President's nominee for Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator for the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative. I am joined here today by my wife Debbie and 
our two children, Brooke and Brendan, as well as my mom Gloria, 
who shares the same northwestern Pennsylvania roots as I do.
    In a Federal career spanning nearly 3 decades, I have 
served in a wide range of capacities at the United States 
Department of Agriculture, which have built upon my roots and 
positioned me to ensure that farmers and farm workers 
throughout the supply chain are successful and advance our 
economy.
    Most recently I have served as Senior Advisory for Trade 
and National Security to the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom 
Vilsack. In this role, I have stood toe to toe and worked hand 
in hand with trading partners to ensure international market 
access for our products.
    If confirmed to this position, I will build upon this 
progress, as Ambassador Tai and USTR aim to deliver more U.S. 
goods to customers in markets around the world. I would like to 
highlight two initiatives that I have worked on recently that 
underscore our commitment to farmers and ranchers.
    Recently at USDA, I helped spearhead negotiations that led 
to greater market access in Mexico for U.S.-grown potatoes. 
This meant aligning our trade and regulatory experts to reach a 
successful outcome on a trade issue that was more than 10 years 
in the making. I am proud of the results, and believe that we 
need to double down in our resolve to get similar tangible 
outcomes for our producers on a wide range of commodities.
    This win was a result of close collaboration between USDA 
and USTR. And it is vital for our agricultural industry and our 
producers that we maintain this partnership. And based upon my 
history at USDA, I look forward to doing exactly that.
    I have also been directly involved in negotiations with my 
Canadian counterparts on dairy policy. This experience has 
provided me a direct appreciation for the difficult steps and 
the tenacity that we must exhibit to ensure that the promises 
of past trade agreements are fully realized.
    I know many Americans, including those from my home State 
of Pennsylvania, have grown somewhat weary of trade and 
question whether the promises in various agreements will 
benefit their bottom line. That is why Ambassador Tai has 
emphasized the importance of trading partners following through 
on their commitments in bilateral and multilateral engagement.
    Earlier this month, we celebrated the second anniversary of 
the USMCA. And if confirmed, I can assure members of this 
committee that utilizing full enforcement authority under USMCA 
and other trade commitments and initiatives around the globe 
will be a top priority for me.
    I also look forward to ensuring that farmers and ranchers 
are front and center as the USTR looks to strengthen our trade 
relationships, execute new initiatives, and address challenges 
like China.
    Initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework 
present an excellent opportunity to knock down regulatory 
barriers and help our producers expand exports. And as we all 
know, China has failed to live up to its commitment under Phase 
One. And as Ambassador Tai works to realign the U.S.-China 
trade relationship and partners with allies to confront China's 
unfair trade policies, I will use my position as Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator to ensure that American farmers and 
ranchers get a fair deal.
    Additionally, farmers in the U.S. need an advocate to help 
ensure that they have affordable access to input materials that 
they need to operate. These are times of tremendous opportunity 
in international trade. But if the bills that farmers have to 
pay for their inputs negate those gains, we will have missed an 
opportunity.
    Finally, these are important times around the globe. Never 
before have food security and national security been as 
directly linked as they are today. It is vital that the Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator be on the job and be equipped to deal 
with all of the assets and the challenges and opportunities 
that lie ahead.
    I am uniquely qualified for that task. I look forward to 
working with all of you in the Congress. The Congress is the 
executive branch's constitutional partner on trade, and if 
confirmed, I look forward to close collaboration with the 
members of this committee and with Congress, since our strength 
in international trade depends upon our unity and strength here 
at home.
    I value the opinions and expertise of the members of this 
committee, and I look forward to benefiting from our dialogue 
going forward. I look forward to responding to any questions 
that members may have, and I thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKalip appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. McKalip, and we do 
have a little bit of a process to go through to get off to the 
races here.
    First, is there anything that you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest to the 
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
    Mr. McKalip. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any reason, personal or 
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 
which you have been nominated?
    Mr. McKalip. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond 
to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Congress, if you are confirmed?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Finally, do you commit to provide a prompt 
response in writing to any questions addressed to you by any 
Senator of this committee?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. I will start with my questions. And we have 
the good fortune to have the chair of the Agriculture Committee 
here and the chair of the Commerce Committee on our side; and 
as you know, our former U.S. Trade Representative, and of 
course my partner, Senator Crapo.
    So in my State--and we talked a little bit about this--we 
do a lot of things well. But what we do best is, we grow 
things. And we do that because it is so important to put 
affordable foodstuffs on the kitchen table of Americans, and we 
understand that the world is fearful, of course, of the 
prospect of global hunger.
    We start with the proposition that our farmers and ranchers 
are just the most competitive, the most efficient, and the 
hardest-
working people around. They can feed a hungry country, and they 
can lead a global effort to feed a hungry world. And a big part 
of putting this strategy together is to have a smart trade 
policy.
    We need an export strategy that provides new markets for 
our farmers. That is what they want. They want new markets to 
sell their products around the world and get food in the hands 
of the needy, both folks here at home and around the world.
    Second, we have to work with our trading partners to 
eliminate the policies that disrupt trade and prevent ag 
products from getting to market; that limit access, for example 
to fertilizer, a very key input, obviously, for farmers; and 
distort global trade so that families go hungry unnecessarily.
    So we have to have a win-win for farmers and ranchers in 
our country, and we need to have policies that work around the 
world to avert the prospect of a global hunger crisis.
    So, no pressure, but that is a big order. And tell us a 
little bit about how you are going to ensure U.S. ag products 
are exported to markets and international programs that need 
them, while generating profits for our farmers. And in my 
State, one out of three jobs revolves around trade.
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you very much for that question, 
Chairman Wyden. I really appreciate that. I have spent 3 
decades of my career fighting on behalf of our farmers, 
ranchers, fishermen, foresters, et cetera. And you are right: 
these are unprecedented times. The conflict in Ukraine, issues 
relating to drought in many parts of the globe mean a bigger 
challenge than we have faced in quite a long time, in terms of 
both food security and making sure that everyone is fed.
    I believe the unwritten narrative in what is emerging every 
day out there means that the American farmer really is going to 
make the difference in the years ahead with respect to these 
crises. Our farmers have proven to be resilient, even in the 
face of difficult climate and precipitation challenges. They 
can produce. So what I would like to do, and what I plan to do, 
if confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, is to help 
ensure that we have open lines of commerce.
    Unfortunately, given the war, we have seen many countries 
sort of working in an insular fashion to try to erect export 
barriers, and to try to shut down cooperation. But what will 
really get us through this crises is sharing, the same as we 
would in any community that endures tough times. We need to 
work with each other.
    The Chairman. Let's do this. Let's talk about specific 
trade barriers for a moment. So I think if I was having a 
roundtable--and I bet my colleagues do these as well with the 
farmers--they would talk about fertilizer. What about export 
challenges that are going to make it possible for them to get 
more affordable fertilizer? And what can you do, and what will 
you pursue?
    Mr. McKalip. You bet. So, one of the challenges relating to 
fertilizer--and that is a major driver for farmers' bottom 
lines because it is a major cost that they have when they grow. 
One challenge that we face right now is that China, for 
example, has shut down exports of urea, another nitrate-based 
material that is used in the manufacturing of fertilizer.
    So, if confirmed to this position as Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator, I would want to work, directly engaged with my 
Chinese counterparts, to see how we can open up the flow of key 
inputs and minerals that can be used here at home for the 
manufacture of fertilizer. Because having those be shut off is, 
quite frankly, affecting the marketplace. And it is ultimately 
affecting the bottom line.
    The Chairman. I am out of time. What about stock-holding 
and those kinds of barriers?
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. Yes, we have, as a 
Nation, very good information about the stock-to-use ratio for 
grains in many countries around the world. Unfortunately, we 
have a few actors out there--China is one of them, I think 
India is another--that do not openly share what their stock-to-
use ratios are.
    And so, as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I would push for 
greater transparency to ensure that we have a better 
understanding of the marketplace and are in a better position 
to help everyone who has a food security challenge.
    The Chairman. Make that a real priority, because I just 
think that it is unacceptable to be withholding that kind of 
information when we are looking at the need to have a policy 
that works for our farmers, and also to address the prospect of 
global food shortages.
    Senator Crapo?
    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. McKalip, both Senator Wyden and I have noted that 
many of our trading partners maintain measures, ostensibly for 
food safety, that are really just disguised protectionism to 
keep out U.S. agricultural products.
    I really appreciate what you have emphasized in your 
opening statement about your role in helping to address one of 
those relating to U.S. potatoes in Mexico. As you indicated, 
that has been a 10-year battle, and frankly it is still going 
on, but we have made some good progress, and I appreciate that.
    I strongly believe that such safety measures must be 
supported by legitimate science. With respect to the IPEF 
process that the administration is currently pursuing, do you 
think it makes sense to pursue rules to ensure health and food 
safety measures that are based on science, like those found in 
the WTO SPS agreement?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Crapo.
    My experience working as a regulator in the Animal, Plant, 
and Health Inspection Service has given me a firsthand 
experience into what it means for plant health, animal health, 
and how those plug in, or do not plug in to international 
trade.
    So, as we begin to work in the Indo-Pacific area, which 
presents a tremendous opportunity for U.S. farm products--there 
are huge markets there that we need to capitalize on. I would 
like to be a strong advocate for ensuring that we have 
alignment, compatibility of the sanitary and phytosanitary 
provisions to ensure that there are not barriers to our farmers 
getting their fruits, vegetables, meat products, et cetera, 
into those markets based upon a regulator in another country 
that has made a determination that is not consistent with 
science.
    Senator Crapo. So here is the question I am kind of going 
to drive at. As I indicated in my opening statement, the 
administration will not engage in trade negotiations for new 
trade agreements right now, and instead is pursuing this 
framework in the Indo-
Pacific.
    But the rules that we have both just talked about now are 
enforceable under trade agreements. How do we make them 
enforceable in the context of the IPEF framework?
    Mr. McKalip. Senator Crapo, I believe, given the structure 
of IPEF and the pillars that are present in it, that we have a 
lot of flexibility to go forward and include provisions that 
will provide us the kinds of tools and leverage that you are 
looking for. Even if the three letters, FTA, are not 
necessarily there, the actual agreements on ag products and the 
work they will do on market access can achieve the same effect. 
And that is going to be incumbent upon me. I will be 
responsible for doing the advocacy necessary to build that into 
those.
    Senator Crapo. But if you have it in the form of some kind 
of an executive agreement, how is that enforceable? I mean, as 
we have talked about with regards to the potatoes in Mexico and 
other circumstances around the globe, we are constantly in need 
of enforcing the agreements. How does that happen under IPEF?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, I think whether there are enforcement 
measures in IPEF and what they look like is yet to be 
determined. So I would, if confirmed, be an advocate within the 
process to push for actual enforcement mechanisms. As you have 
mentioned and referenced, USMCA has given us very clear 
enforcement mechanisms which we have now begun to use on a few 
commodities. Having that lever in the toolbox is important, and 
I certainly would, if confirmed, advocate for as much leverage 
and things we can point to and utilize.
    Senator Crapo. All right; I appreciate that. I think that 
is a really critical issue.
    There is bipartisan concern that the USTR is not adequately 
consulting with Congress on trade policy. And that is 
particularly a shame when it comes to agricultural trade 
policy, because Congress is very close to our farmers and our 
ranchers. I believe we both agree that U.S. trade policy is 
strongest when Congress and the administration are working 
together. And so to that end, I want to ask you, do you agree 
that Congress must see all administration proposals for binding 
trade obligations before they are provided to our trading 
partners, so that we can have meaningful input?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes. Senator Crapo, in my 30-year career, I 
think I have been really effective on behalf of farmers and 
ranchers. And my positions themselves did not always carry a 
great level of authority, so my authority basically was derived 
from the ability to speak on behalf of the U.S. Government, and 
on behalf of principals. And if confirmed, I will become a 
principal, and I look forward to that opportunity.
    But I believe if I am standing toe to toe overseas with a 
trading partner, having the voice of the executive branch and 
the legislative branch unified on farm issues puts me in the 
strongest position to get results on behalf of farmers and 
ranchers. And I would certainly want to cooperate closely with 
you and other members here and make sure that we have that kind 
of unified message. That is the only way we can be fully 
successful.
    Senator Crapo. I agree with you on that, and I appreciate 
that answer. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Portman is next.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McKalip, I wanted to come today, come up to see you and 
thank you for your willingness to step up and serve at a new 
and important level as one of the ambassadors for the United 
States, and in this case an ambassador for farmers, and for our 
legitimate ag interests that are not being fairly treated 
around the world.
    The ``level playing field'' term gets thrown around a lot, 
but it is so appropriate with regard to agriculture. We have 
some of the most productive farmland in the world and the most 
efficient farmers in the world, and yet so many countries put 
in place barriers, whether they are tariff barriers or non-
tariff barriers. And so you are going to have your hands full.
    I must say, I appreciate your response to Senator Crapo, 
but I think we have to be honest here. We are not talking about 
trade-opening agreements when we talk about IPEF or other 
frameworks. If you are Vietnam or another country in that 
framework and the United States is not willing to talk about 
trade-opening on both sides of the equation, there is no 
prospect--in my view, from my experience as USTR--that you are 
going to get a good agreement.
    They open their markets to our agricultural products often 
in exchange, as you know, for other openings that they get into 
our market, or other countries' markets. And that is not part 
of the IPEF, as you know. So that is my big concern.
    You know, I am pleased you stepped up, and I think you have 
the ability to make a difference here, but I hope that you will 
agree today to be an advocate for changing the policy. I mean, 
it is shooting ourselves in the foot not to have a single trade 
negotiating agreement going on today, not to have a single 
ounce of effort being expended toward getting Trade Promotion 
Authority expanded, which is necessary for Congress to have its 
rightful role.
    You said earlier that you thought that there could be some 
enforcement mechanisms in IPEF. I guess that means that 
Congress gets cut out of that. And again, we have a role here 
to play that can be very constructive, as you saw with USMCA, 
where this committee played an essential role, including the 
chairman and ranking member.
    So I am looking at how agriculture today--our fertilizer 
and diesel costs have both doubled; fertilizer often even more 
than that. We are looking for foreign markets. We are glad to 
see some openings in some places. We have a great opportunity 
this year, because we have, at least in most parts of the 
country, including Ohio, some really positive conditions for a 
great crop. And yet these barriers exist.
    So when you talked earlier about how you want to be able to 
open lines of commerce in terms of talking to the countries, I 
would just suggest we need to open markets for export, not just 
open lines for commerce. I am not sure what that means.
    So, can you respond to that? What would you do, if 
confirmed, to try to get us back into the situation where we 
are actually attempting to achieve market access, and actually 
remain successful in achieving it?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes. Thank you, Senator Portman. I really 
appreciate that.
    My home town in Pennsylvania, by the way, is about 12 miles 
from the Ohio border, so I have had an opportunity to spend 
time and definitely understand a lot of the same issues that 
your farmers are interested in--the same ones farmers from my 
home area are interested in as well.
    With respect to IPEF, which you particularly referenced, I 
believe there are tremendous market access opportunities. And 
we have seen with Vietnam--for example, their recent switch in 
policy on biotechnology and becoming a little bit closer 
aligned with where the U.S. is--a sign that we can get better 
flow of U.S. goods to these marketplaces.
    Right now, just using biotechnology policy as an example, 
the positions that many Asian countries have with respect to 
biotech approvals do not represent the current science. They do 
not represent where the science is heading, for example, on 
genome editing. So we have an opportunity to basically advance 
and get those policies more closely in alignment with reality, 
which will provide a fair and open way for our row crops and 
other products to get into those marketplaces.
    But certainly, if confirmed, I would be an advocate within 
the administration to push for as many leveraging tools as we 
can possibly have to actually hold countries accountable in 
those relationships that we have.
    Senator Portman. Leverage for farmers in America comes from 
our willingness to engage and have market access. That has been 
our experience, and so you are going to have your hands full. 
And I hope you will be an advocate for changing the current 
policy. It just makes no sense. It makes no sense to any 
agricultural interest in America, but even on a political 
basis, or a partisan basis. You know, we should be back in the 
game.
    One specific question, and I will let you go, about the UK. 
We have worked our way toward an agreement with the United 
Kingdom. They have made huge concessions in agriculture to New 
Zealand and Australia in the last years. We are not taking 
advantage of those because we will not complete that agreement. 
We are four-fifths of the way there. This is with the UK, 
arguably our greatest ally in the world. The geopolitical 
significance is clear. But even in agriculture, obviously we 
should take advantage of what they are giving to these other 
countries.
    What are your thoughts on that? Are you willing to sit down 
with the UK and complete that agreement?
    Mr. McKalip. So, in my role with USDA, I actually flew over 
to Europe and met with many of my regulatory counterparts from 
the UK. And you are absolutely correct. There is a tremendous 
opportunity. As they have left the EU, they are now forming 
their own systems and their own programs. So this is the time 
to capitalize on making sure we have market access, and have 
market alignment there.
    Senator Portman. My time is up. In making agreements with 
other countries, giving them agricultural access that we should 
have, and yet we are not able to take advantage of it because 
we will not complete that agreement----
    Mr. McKalip. No, I would work for access for our farm 
products and ranch products to the UK. And if confirmed, that 
will be a major regional focus for me as Ag Negotiator.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Next is Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Crapo. Thanks for holding today's hearing. And, Mr. McKalip, 
thank you for your service to USDA.
    We are now a year and a half into the Biden administration, 
and we are just now getting a nominee for Chief Ag Negotiator 
before the committee. And while the administration has dragged 
its feet on making this position a priority, our Nation's 
agricultural producers have been without a leading voice on the 
global stage, which I think is simply inexcusable. It is all 
the more inexcusable when our ag community is dealing with 40-
year-high inflation, rising input costs, supply chain 
challenges, and increased international competition.
    I hope Mr. McKalip's nomination serves as a turning point 
to the administration when it comes to trade, and especially 
for America's farmers and ranchers.
    Mr. McKalip, I remain deeply concerned that the Indo-
Pacific Economic Framework fails to include market access for 
agriculture. For generations, a large part of our Nation's 
economic success has been based on the U.S. advocating for 
more, not less, open markets.
    For example, the U.S.'s food products exports grew from 
$46.1 billion in 1994 to more than $177 billion in 2021, which 
was largely due to greater market access opportunities for 
American exporters. In this administration, however, there are 
no trade agreements under discussion, and increased market 
access for any U.S. products seems to be a taboo subject.
    Meanwhile, other countries, including China, are driving 
ahead with new trade agreements and opening market access for 
their agricultural products. So, if confirmed, how will you 
advocate for market access opportunities for U.S. farmers and 
ranchers? And what are some specific access opportunities and 
tariff reductions that would benefit U.S. agricultural 
interests?
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you, Senator Thune. I appreciate that 
question. And you referenced the position being vacant, and I 
assure you, if you talk to anyone who has worked with me, they 
know that I will pedal harder to make up for lost time to make 
sure that we get the kind of results for market access that our 
farmers want.
    IPEF has four pillars, and trade is one of those four 
pillars. And when I initially studied how the structure was set 
up, I thought that trade only being one of the four doesn't 
really balance what farmers would expect in terms of getting 
results for sending their products over to Asia.
    The way, if confirmed, that I would be an advocate within 
the administration is to not think of it the way we think of it 
in the traditional four-pillar building, but to think of a 
lodgepole structure where trade is the centerpiece and the most 
central to the actual structural integrity of IPEF.
    So, if confirmed, I would push very hard for, number one, 
trade to be a much larger percentage of the results compared 
to, you know, clean economies or the connective economies, the 
other sections of IPEF. Because again, I think that if we are 
able to, as we so far have gotten better access to beef in 
Japan, better access to pork in India, we can triple our 
efforts and essentially ensure that IPEF contains the kinds of 
market access that your ranchers are expecting in South Dakota.
    I believe I am the advocate to help get that done, and I 
look forward to pushing for that within the IPEF structure. 
Another one that we have underway right now----
    Senator Thune. So you agree that greater market access is a 
fundamental component of American agriculture, if we are going 
to compete in the Indo-Pacific?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, absolutely. Not just in the Indo-Pacific, 
but around the globe. I think a lot of the things that our 
farmers are providing--I think our farmers' products sell 
themselves; that they are the best quality of anywhere in the 
world, the best reliability. And there are consumers around the 
globe who want those products that we have.
    The governments in those countries are standing essentially 
between your farmer, your rancher, and that consumer over 
there. So it is going to be my duty to break down those 
barriers and to give our farmers a chance to sell their 
products and see what they can do.
    Senator Thune. That it is. And we need free-trade 
agreements. I mean, this is an area of the world where we ought 
to be competing, and competing hard. But in order for that to 
happen, we've got to focus on market access and not a lot of 
the other stuff that oftentimes gets mentioned in the IPEF.
    Let me ask you one question about an issue that is 
important in my State of South Dakota. We have cattle producers 
who work hard every day to produce high-quality beef. Americans 
recognize this, and they want to know where their food is 
coming from, which is why I am a long-time supporter of 
mandatory country-of-origin labeling, or what we call COOL.
    Last year I introduced the American Beef Labeling Act, 
which would direct the Office of the U.S. Trade Rep to develop 
a WTO-compliant means of reinstating COOL for beef. If 
confirmed, would you commit to working with me and my staff on 
finding a path forward on COOL to help address the concerns of 
livestock producers in South Dakota and across the country?
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you, Senator Thune. For part of my 
career I actually worked on implementation of COOL at USDA, so 
I see the value. Consumers want knowledge and transparency, and 
certainly the American brand sells itself, when the consumer 
has a chance to know, when they are able to get American 
products.
    So my priority as Chief Agricultural Negotiator would be to 
arrive at a policy and an approach that can withstand future 
challenge, so that we don't have a system where the pendulum is 
swinging back and forth, but that we can get something in place 
that can be more permanent, and something that our consumers 
can gain trust in and know will be there for them as a signal 
in the marketplace.
    Senator Thune. We will look forward to working with you on 
that, and I expect that you will be a fierce advocate for us on 
this issue.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Senator Bennet is next.
    Senator Bennet. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Mr. McKalip, for your willingness to serve.
    Ambassador Tai was kind enough to participate in a 
roundtable with farmers and ranchers in Colorado to talk about 
the importance of trade to our State's agricultural economy.
    As you probably know, our top agriculture export product is 
home-grown Colorado beef. Our cattle ranchers gladly welcome 
the U.S.-Japan beef safeguard deal that was struck earlier this 
year, and I just want to tell you that they said that to her. 
We appreciate it.
    I also, of course, share the view that our growth is going 
to come from market access. And a lot of that is going to be in 
the Indo-Pacific region. But you have covered that already 
today, so let me go to something of specific importance to me.
    You mentioned potatoes and your work on potatoes. 
Colorado's San Luis Valley is the second largest fresh potato-
growing region in the country. Our potato farmers have long 
struggled, as you know, with market access into the Mexican 
marketplace. In May, after 25 years of disputes, as you 
mentioned, the USDA and the USTR had a positive breakthrough, 
allowing exports of Colorado potatoes into Mexico. However, 
there are additional legal fights that may block this new 
access.
    I just want to know how you plan to ensure that U.S. 
potatoes maintain access to the Mexican market, and whether you 
will commit to using every tool at USTR's disposal, including 
mechanisms of USMCA, to hold Mexico accountable so that we 
actually get this implemented properly, and the farmers in the 
San Luis Valley have the chance to sell their incredible 
product in Mexico.
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, Senator Bennet. I appreciate that 
question. You know, a lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into 
getting that market access on the part of all of us. So 
maintaining it--I think every tool would be on the table to 
make sure that there is no back slippage or any loss of that 
access that we now have for our potatoes.
    Something I want to share is a little personal, but I think 
it is really illustrative of the importance for potato growers. 
My wife Debbie here behind me, her uncle, who is a life-long 
resident of Foxborough, MA, an Army veteran--he was in the 
Signal Corps and learned Spanish as part of his service. After 
his wife passed away, he decided on a drier climate, a warmer 
climate; he decided to move to San Miguel, Mexico. And after 
the potato agreement was reached, he called me and he asked, 
``How soon are the potatoes going to be here?'' And I said, 
``Well, you know, I am not going to tell you anything that you 
can't read in the paper, but very soon you are going to see 
them down there. Why are you asking me this question?'' He 
said, ``The potatoes that we have access to here are not the 
same consistency. They have a different starchiness. They cook 
differently.'' He said, ``When I come back up to the U.S. for 
Thanksgiving, for holidays, I can't wait to get an American 
potato. How soon am I going to see American potatoes down here 
in our marketplace?''
    And it was a reminder to me, as a lot of us worked 
tirelessly on agricultural trade, that we think about offering 
maybe a lower price, et cetera, to form a market. But there 
really are consumers out there who want what your growers in 
Colorado make. And that is something for them to be proud of, 
but it is something for people like me to work on double-time 
to make sure that we are not placing barriers to them getting 
their product to those consumers.
    Senator Bennet. Well, I appreciate that answer. I just have 
a second left, but I think the chairman and the ranking member 
might appreciate this. In the San Luis Valley in Colorado, 
which of course was once part of Mexico, and once part of 
Spain, there is a marker there that identifies the very first 
agricultural ditch in Colorado that waters everything in 
Colorado and the West. And on that post are the names of the 
people who were entitled to draw water from that ditch. It's 
called ``The People's Ditch,'' the first ditch in Colorado. And 
on that post is the name ``Salazar,'' which belongs to my 
predecessor, Ken Salazar, who was elected from Colorado to 
represent us in the U.S. Senate, and now happens to be the 
United States Ambassador to Mexico.
    So I know this is an issue that is near and dear to his 
heart, and I thought I would mention that connection. But thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bennet, for a very 
important set of questions, and we have such fond remembrances 
of our colleague who served on this committee, Senator Salazar.
    Senator Stabenow, the chair of the Agriculture Committee, 
our go-to person.
    Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Chairman Wyden and 
Ranking Member Crapo, for the hearing. And welcome, Mr. 
McKalip. We are so glad to have you in front of us, and to have 
your nomination in front of us. We definitely need a Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator as soon as possible.
    I know that from the Agriculture Committee's standpoint, 
with myself and Senator Boozman, we have been urging them to 
have this happen as quickly as possible. And I know the breadth 
of knowledge that you have, what you bring to the role from 
your career working on a wide range of issues at USDA. It is 
incredibly important that we get your talent and skills to work 
as soon as possible for our farmers and ranchers in our rural 
communities. So I look forward to supporting your confirmation.
    Obviously enforcement is very, very important, as well as 
how we negotiate opening up markets. Our farmers need markets, 
as we talked about today, we all know--safest, most affordable 
food supply in the world. And we need markets to be successful.
    I wonder if you might talk specifically about Canada, our 
friends in Canada, and the dairy market access commitments that 
we were able to negotiate under USMCA. Dairy is our top 
commodity in Michigan, and it is really critical that Canada 
follows through. We know that Ambassador Tai has been focused 
on the issue. The first trade case that she brought, which was 
great--as you know, Canada's response on a lack of meaningful 
changes has been very, very disappointing in this area.
    So how can we make sure that this second dairy case is 
successful and results in the real change we need to see from 
Canada so our dairy farmers see the full benefits of this 
agreement that we fought so hard to get?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow. It is 
nice to see you. The dairy farmers in this country are the 
hardest-
working farmers there are. I think if you talk to anybody in 
agriculture, they would all agree that there are no harder 
workers than dairy.
    And all of us, you all up here, USDA, fought really hard 
for those provisions of USMCA. And this is really one of our 
first opportunities to utilize those tools and to make sure 
that USMCA will be effective going down the path.
    So, we were successful in the first phase, but Canada's 
response to that decision fell far short of the mark. They 
absolutely did not provide the kind of market access that our 
dairy producers deserve. And we will fight fully for full 
retail access to the market in Canada for our dairy products.
    So USDA cooperated very closely with USTR to file the 
second round. The kind of tenacity that we showed on potatoes, 
I assure you, Chairwoman Stabenow, we will utilize on dairy. 
This is not something that we will let rest, and we will 
continue to work directly with the Canadians until we get the 
kind of market access that our farmers believe that they 
deserve, that we believe they deserve.
    And quite frankly, you know--I mentioned in my opening 
statement, with some weariness, we have a lot of dairy folks in 
our home area in Pennsylvania, and in our family, involved in 
and around dairy. We need to be successful on trade agreement 
enforcement because, if we are not, it just is a way for folks 
to question what they can believe in terms of government.
    So I take that very strongly in my responsibility to make 
sure that we deliver results, and that farmers see the kind of 
access that they deserve.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you so much.
    And we have talked a lot about the unscientific SPS, or the 
phytosanitary barriers, other technical barriers, nontariff 
trade barriers that we face when we are selling abroad. This is 
a continual issue for us. For years and years I have been 
focused on this for various kinds of commodities. We in 
Michigan grow more diversity of crops than actually any other 
State but California. So we are faced with this all the time, 
as you know.
    So it is very important that you are focused on that going 
forward. There is another piece, though, while we are trying to 
sell abroad. We also have to make sure, particularly, that our 
fruit and vegetable growers do not face unfair competition of 
imports here at home. This is the other side of that.
    So we have had this problem with asparagus and tart 
cherries and blueberries, where we see unfair subsidized 
foreign imports, essentially dumping in our country, increasing 
very, very difficult situations for our farmers.
    Michigan farmers have really been concerned about being 
successful with these unfair imports and subsidizing of 
imports. So could you talk a little bit from that end? How do 
we keep our domestic fruit and vegetable growers in business 
and ensure a fair market price in the U.S.?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, for that 
question. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, 
especially with respect to fruit and vegetable producers in 
particular.
    Having worked at APHIS, we have a world-class system of 
ensuring plant health, ensuring that our plants are free of 
pests, et cetera. And I believe we should hold foreign 
importers to the same standards that we hold our own producers 
to here.
    And so, if confirmed, I would want to work closely with 
you, and I would want to work closely with my team at USTR and 
the USDA. Cooperation, I think, would be critical to making 
sure that there is not a back door, and if there is, that we 
close it, and that we are a lot tighter on our requirements to 
make sure that what is good for one is good for everybody, and 
that there are not two different standards out there.
    So that is something that I think should be an area of 
focus, and it will be for me, if confirmed to this position.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I would just say I hope we are able to move 
this nominee as quickly as possible. Our farmers and ranchers 
need to have the advocate there at the USTR.
    The Chairman. Very well said. The chair of the Agriculture 
Committee has made a number of important points, and I just 
want to come back to one that is central. Because a number of 
us mentioned this very issue.
    We heard some of our colleagues on the other side talk 
about new trade agreements, and I want everybody to understand 
that market access is important to a lot of us. But what 
Senator Stabenow raised, as chair of the Agriculture Committee, 
is you also have got to enforce the laws on the books. In other 
words, trade is a two-part exercise. Absolutely look for new 
ways to expand access to markets; put me down for being 
interested in that every time. Also put me down for the point 
that Senator Stabenow just made: you have got to enforce the 
laws on the books. And I will be home soon having town meetings 
around the State. I will hear from dairy farmers, as Senator 
Stabenow mentioned, about whether or not we are going to 
enforce the USMCA provisions. So I thank her.
    We have another trade champ. Senator Cortez Masto is next, 
and then she will be followed by Senator Young.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. McKalip, 
congratulations on your nomination.
    I am going to talk about the cattle industry, which you 
probably already addressed, but I was in a cryptocurrency 
hearing in Banking, so I am going to ask you, if you do not 
mind, to further discuss it a little bit. In Nevada, and really 
across the country, U.S. cattle producers have a personal stake 
in, we know, protecting our public lands and the environment. 
And cattle producers in Nevada are a leading example of that.
    If confirmed, how would you work at USTR to further promote 
U.S. beef across the globe?
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you very much for that question, 
Senator. One area that I think is incredibly important is that, 
as issues like sustainability and climate become more of an 
international topic--not only in trade discussions but in a 
variety of forums--that the U.S. take better credit and that we 
help tell the story of our farmers and ranchers better, because 
I will put the stewardship of our ranchers and our farmers--
what they do for soil quality, water quality, putting ground 
cover out there--up against any producer around the globe.
    And I don't think we have been aggressive enough at telling 
that story and making sure that we get credit, whether it is in 
carbon accounting, or if you are doing modeling, that we use a 
system that adequately shows what our folks are doing and have 
done. And we are going to make more investments, and so it is 
even more important that we get the systems set up right so 
that we are not disadvantaged essentially, and that our folks 
end up having--well, it's a new thing, even though they have 
been practicing soil stewardship since 1985, or wetland 
protection since 1990. They should get adequately recognized 
for that in the marketplace.
    The other thing as Chief Agricultural Negotiator that I am 
concerned about has to do with licensing, and essentially 
renewals of this licensing, because what I find now is that you 
have a country--suddenly we have our export licenses expire, or 
there is a new system set up. And there have been situations in 
the last year where we have had boats on the water shipping and 
exporting to a country, and we have been scrambling around to 
make sure that when they got to the port of entry, that the 
licensing was in place.
    So, if confirmed to this position, I would work really hard 
to map out and make sure that we have better long-term 
arrangements, so that we are not fighting fires when we ought 
to be gardening new markets and cultivating new long-term 
markets out there.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate your 
comments.
    In your written testimony, you mention that you would seek 
to build on Ambassador Tai's and USTR's work to bring more U.S. 
goods to customers in markets around the world.
    With various trade negotiations underway, how would you 
work to leverage all of our tools in the toolbox to assist our 
agriculture producers, if confirmed?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes. So, using USMCA as an example, the types 
of phytosanitary provisions that are there. Another provision 
of the USMCA is the ability to do some rapid response. And 
there are templates that I would like to try to apply to 
various regions and various types of commodities.
    Since we are talking about beef in this conversation, the 
ability for Japan to raise its safeguard and allow, under their 
quota system, additional beef, having those kinds of 
flexibilities and provisions really came in handy when Japan 
realized it wanted more beef. We certainly had beef to sell. So 
that solution was something that was due to the fact that there 
was a mechanism there that could be utilized.
    So, as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, that kind of 
flexibility would be something I would advocate for so that we 
are not stuck, if we have a willing buyer and we have willing 
ranchers and farmers here, that we always have the ability to 
keep trade flowing and to keep the marketplace moving.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate your 
comments. Congratulations, again.
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Grassley is next and then Senator Young.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you for the time you spent in my 
office this morning at 8:15. I appreciate that very much.
    Our farmers rely on exports for their business. When they 
hear the Biden administration promote what is called worker-
centered trade policies, farmers feel forgotten. The U.S. is 
creating a leadership vacuum that is being filled by China and 
the European Union. And by the way, the European competitors do 
not think that free trade agreements are a 20th-century tool, 
like our present administration does. The European Union is 
working on securing market access for its agriculture producers 
through comprehensive trade agreements.
    So for you, in a very general question, how do you intend 
to promote a trade agenda that will serve American farmers and 
producers, and will that include advocating for free trade 
agreements?
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you, Senator Grassley. And thank you 
very much for the time this morning. I enjoyed our conversation 
very much as well.
    So, as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, if confirmed, I would 
advocate for farmers. The same as when you talked about worker-
centered policy, farmers are absolutely workers. And so that 
would be front and center in terms of my agenda.
    I think, regardless of whether the three letters FTA appear 
in any of the regional initiatives that we would do on trade, I 
promise you that I will fight for absolute full-market access 
for American agriculture in those regions, regardless of what 
the actual agreement name is, or what the initiative's name is.
    The way I look at it--and I've been 30 years in this 
business--I agree that free trade agreements are kind of the 
Eagle Scout level of attainment in terms of what we can do to 
give farmers market access out there. But I also feel that some 
of the things we have done, like Japan beef, India pork, Mexico 
potatoes, are sort of the merit badges of the uniform, so to 
speak. And so I will work diligently and tirelessly to make 
sure that my team at USTR are fighting to get a full jacket, 
sash, everything covered with merit badges, and that at the end 
of the day we get the same level of market access for farmers, 
whether or not the agreement has a certain title, or what the 
name of that agreement may be.
    Senator Grassley. Mexico's non-science-based treatment of 
agriculture biotechnology is undermining the development of 
products in the United States, and our farmers suffer as a 
result of that. This is coming at a time when the world is 
facing a global shortage of food, a problem best solved by 
agriculture innovations and technology. So let's assume you are 
confirmed.
    What are you going to do about enforcing USMCA 
biotechnology provisions to prevent disruption to North 
American grain markets and on-farm innovation?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, sir, Senator Grassley. If confirmed, this 
will be a key area of priority for me. Biotechnology and 
agricultural innovation are how we are getting through drought. 
It is how we get through difficulties in terms of production. 
And maintaining market access for those products is absolutely 
vital. I feel that it is necessary for us, if we have to, to 
use USMCA provisions to enforce on biotechnology, that every 
tool should be at our disposal. This is a key time to have this 
conversation, because as countries--as you referenced--face 
food inflation and pressures on supply, we recognize that it is 
actually ag innovation that is ensuring continued supply.
    And so we need to make sure that our farmers, if we are 
asking them to do practices that are helping with 
sustainability and climate--usually it is elite gene lines and 
seeds that are helping to do that. The U.S. Government reformed 
its biotechnology policy, and so we want to make sure that 
other countries have access not just for plants, but for 
animal-based biotechnologies.
    These are all key areas for us, and they will definitely be 
a priority for me as Chief Agricultural Negotiator.
    Senator Grassley. Let me end with the unjustified trade 
barriers on exports of ethanol. This is a matter both for corn 
growers and ethanol producers. Currently there is an ongoing 
countervailing duty order on U.S. ethanol exports to Columbia. 
I understand that the Columbian Government is currently 
deciding whether to terminate these duties through sunset 
review.
    Can you commit to work with your colleagues at the USDA and 
State to make sure that the Columbian Government does the right 
thing and terminates these unjustified tariffs?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes, if confirmed, Senator Grassley, I would 
work with your team, work with our team at USTR and USDA, to 
lay out a strategy in dealing with the Columbian issue that you 
raised.
    There are so many opportunities for biofuels right now. 
Mexico has just gone to E10, recently, or allowed for E10. 
Japan has committed to doubling its imports of biofuels. So 
there are a lot of opportunities out there right now for 
biofuels. And, if confirmed, I will be an advocate to make sure 
that those bobbers that are out there moving on the water 
result in us getting some fish into the boat.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Young?
    Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my 
colleagues.
    Senator Grassley is leaving the room right now, but I do 
want to point out that he has been a great advocate for his 
State's corn growers. And he told me he was going to vote for 
the semiconductor bill, if we could figure out a way to produce 
those semiconductors out of Iowa corn, all right? We have not 
done that yet, but, yes, sir.
    You just affirmed that you believe in science, which I 
think is really important. I know you have a strong background 
in that area. And for me, that is really important as I 
consider whether or not to support your nomination and confirm 
you to this post.
    USMCA, as you indicated, opens up all kinds of 
possibilities for our ag tech, including gene editing. Mexico 
has made all sorts of approval delays, and they really lack a 
science-based approach; at least they do not fulfill the 
expectations of my ag producers and my constituents. And this 
of course hurts our own ag community. So I am glad you are 
making that a top priority.
    I also get the sense by some of your comments that you 
believe in trade. And to me that is pretty fundamental, in 
light of the position that you have been nominated for. Trade 
benefits consumers, our ag producers, our rural communities, 
and really it furthers our national security as well.
    Do you agree with my last statement?
    Mr. McKalip. Absolutely. I believe that national security 
and food security and trade are probably more closely aligned 
right now than they have been in my 30-year career, and maybe 
in an unprecedented manner.
    Senator Young. I am highly refreshed to hear that. I have 
held some hearings on this topic in the past, something I am 
very interested in, because it is indeed so important.
    I would just publicly indicate that I have had some 
interactions, my office has had interactions with USTR--and you 
are not responsible for this, so I am not going to pull you 
into this, sir, but it is important to go on the record and say 
that there are staff members at USTR who work for Ambassador 
Tai who say that trade is not a national security issue. 
Nothing could be further from the truth, from my standpoint. 
You have just affirmed your belief, and I appreciate that, sir.
    Along those lines, I think it is also important to 
understand that the administration, at least so far, has 
indicated they are not going to be pursuing a free trade 
agreement that has market access, or looking to renew Trade 
Promotion Authority that would give them the opportunity to 
negotiate new free trade agreements.
    That undermines our national security, in my view, and we 
need to change that policy. And at a time of high inflation--
let me see, inflation reached 10.4 percent in June for food--we 
ought to be thinking about negotiating with our counterparties, 
other countries, about increasing access for our producers to 
their markets, and vice versa. It can lower costs for 
consumers. It can help benefit our ag economy enormously.
    So you have the skill set, the requisite skill set, sir, I 
think, to assist. But it is going to require a higher-level 
decision to pursue TPA and free trade agreements.
    Now I will get into the questions. Despite U.S. ag exports 
to Korea reaching an all-time high in 2021, I agree with 
Ambassador Tai that there is still room to grow there. Do you 
share Ambassador Tai's commitment to improving the regulatory 
process for ag biotech in Korea, Mr. McKalip?
    Mr. McKalip. Absolutely, Senator Young. Unfortunately, 
biotech has been a barrier to market access in many countries, 
not just in Asia, but around the globe. And you referenced 
genome editing earlier in your opening there.
    This is a time to have that conversation, because what is 
happening with genome editing and the way it is being utilized 
essentially mimics what could be done in breeding in a 
greenhouse. So the risks are commensurate with that, which from 
a greenhouse perspective we have been doing that--we have had 
experience with that for hundreds of years.
    So we need to work hard to make sure there are not 
unscientific barriers being put on our farmers' products that 
are being sent abroad.
    Senator Young. Very good. That was my follow-up. I 
appreciate it.
    Recently the Director-General of the World Trade 
Organization suggested the idea of holding a members' retreat 
this September. And the idea here would be to find ways to 
rejuvenate ag negotiations which have been stalled for years.
    If confirmed, should the U.S. be involved in the retreat? 
What do you believe are the main priorities to the United 
States with respect to the WTO's food security challenges?
    Mr. McKalip. Yes. So looking at WTO, I think even before we 
start to dig in on specific tweaks or changes, getting the body 
to be more proactive, more responsive, and to act quicker with 
actual results, is really a key.
    I have tremendous respect for Ambassador Pagan, who is our 
WTO person there. I would want to work very closely, if 
confirmed, with her to advocate for the farmer. I think farmers 
look at WTO, the ones I talk to--we used to have a tractor that 
had a throttle; it had a rabbit at the top, and it had a turtle 
at the bottom.
    I think, you know, farmers are very impatient with the 
inaction. I think they look at WTO not quite as a turtle 
sometimes. So you know, there are some good outcomes from the 
recent meeting there. Ambassador Tai, Ambassador Pagan worked 
really hard to get some outcomes there. But we have to 
invigorate that body to get faster results, to get outcomes on 
behalf of farmers. And that is something I would like to work 
with the USTR team on.
    Senator Young. That sounds like a really important 
priority. So I will look forward to doing some good together, 
should you be confirmed, sir. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague for his questions. And 
in particular, my colleague raising the point with respect to 
food and national security is absolutely key, because there is 
no question in my mind about the possibility of food being 
weaponized with the challenges that we are facing around the 
world. So I appreciated that discussion between my colleague 
from Indiana and our nominee.
    The Senator from Oklahoma has arrived. He might be out of 
breath, but whenever he is ready, he may go ahead.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate that, coming in from another hearing. The back and 
forth is always a joy--going back and forth.
    Thanks for your service to the Nation already and working 
with USDA, but I have concerns on this, and I am just trying to 
figure out where this is going.
    We have had the USTR here in this room multiple times. We 
have had Secretary Raimondo to be able to talk about trade 
negotiations and what is happening on the Commerce side, and 
the very clear message that we have heard over and over again 
is, ``We are not going to do trade deals. The President has 
instructed us. We are not going to do trade deals.''
    Now, the first year we were all asking questions about what 
are we going to do with the UK, what are we going to do in 
Asia, where are we expanding to? Every ag producer in my 
State--and I have a lot in my State of Oklahoma--asked me the 
same question. Well, two questions. When is it going to rain 
next? That is the first one. The second one is always, what is 
the new trade agreement that we've got working? What new 
country? We are overly dependent on China for soybeans. We are 
overly dependent on certain countries.
    What new countries are we developing trade agreements with? 
And I hear from the Biden administration, we are not going to. 
We are kind of working on the edges of tweaking a few things.
    So my biggest question for you is, what new trade 
agreements are we going to organize? And for you--you have 
worked on domestic policy--how are you prepared to be able to 
help work with countries to be able to go get new trade 
agreements? Because we need new places to send pork. We need 
new places to send beef. We need new places to send wheat. We 
need new places to send soybeans.
    We've got great supply. There are customers that are out 
there. We are just not developing those relationships 
intentionally.
    Mr. McKalip. Thank you, Senator Lankford. I really 
appreciate that question. And I cannot make it rain for your 
farmers in Oklahoma----
    Senator Lankford. I can't either, but that's all right.
    Mr. McKalip. But what I can do is make some rain in terms 
of trade access. And the farmers I have talked to in my 30-year 
career with USDA, I think the reason that they associate those 
three letters, FTA, or Free Trade Agreement, with market access 
is, they look back at past performance and what that has done 
for them.
    My role as Chief Agricultural Negotiator will be to get 
them the kind of market access that they are expecting and that 
they need, regardless of what the title at the top of the 
document says.
    I would not be taking this job, I would not be interested 
in it, if I did not think I could make a difference for 
farmers. So what they need, your ranchers, in terms of meat 
products, your farmers in terms of row crops--it is going to be 
incumbent upon me to deliver the kinds of results and to be an 
advocate within the system and abroad to make sure that, at the 
end of the day, things that were not sent to these countries 
previously now have an opportunity there.
    Quite frankly, we have had a few trade missions already 
this year. We just had one in the Philippines that completed. 
Really impressive opportunities are opening up there. I think 
this is a time when our farmers can really capitalize on 
sending things abroad in ways they haven't before. So I want to 
be their advocate----
    Senator Lankford. Yes, there is no doubt this is a good 
time for us to be able to expand. Obviously what is happening 
worldwide when everyone is looking for reliable customers, the 
reason those letters, FTA, matter to them is because it is 
certainty. It outlives an administration. It is something 
consistent. We know what the trade policy is going to be. 
Congress has agreed to it. The American people have agreed to 
it. They can put supply chains in order. They can get delivery 
systems in order to be able to do it. And there is a 
consistency.
    If it is only an executive agreement, it only lasts as long 
as that administration. And they have no idea if it is going to 
keep going. So why would you develop all of your systems to be 
able to ship to a certain country and all the relationships 
that need to be done, if you do not know if it is going to last 
longer than 2 years?
    So it is important to get some kind of certainty. And my 
concern is that the administration is focused on executive 
agreements rather than lasting agreements. And farmers are 
looking for lasting agreements.
    With that, what region, and what products are kind of first 
on your list? We have had first-on-the-lists that we thought 
were really ready; for instance, the UK is one of those areas. 
And they were primed and ready, saying, ``Hey, we want to be 
able to make the deal on this.'' And we are just not seeing the 
effort being put into that.
    There are lots of areas of Southeast Asia that are very 
interested in engaging with us in our agreements. There are 
other countries that are even looking at the latest agreement 
that we made 3 years ago, and saying, ``We will take that 
deal,'' but we are not even trying at that point.
    So who is first on the list?
    Mr. McKalip. So I think we need to be absolutely--you 
mentioned the UK. I have flown over and met with my regulator 
counterparts there, and there are a lot of opportunities that 
are not far from being realized.
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Mr. McKalip. And so we need to get there. Southeast Asia, 
for sure, is a big one. Latin America--and there are some areas 
in Africa as well that need to be a major focus for us.
    And the agricultural commodities differ depending upon 
which of those areas that you are referring to. So I would want 
to make sure we have the boots on the ground and work on behalf 
of all of those to get some results as early as we can in the 
process.
    With respect to IPEF, I think the ink is not dry regarding 
whether or not there are enforcement mechanisms in there, the 
kinds that your farmers want to see and expect. So it would be 
my responsibility and duty to advocate to get those kinds of 
commitments for agriculture to have lasting power, certainly 
beyond a few years, or 8 years.
    Senator Lankford. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate the conversation on this.
    Let me just put this hat on and say to you, I am 
skeptical--and it is not you, because I do not know you well 
enough--but it took 18 months for the Biden administration to 
even put someone in this role, and they have been very vocal 
with us that they are not looking for free trade agreements.
    And when they say they are not looking for a free trade 
agreement, and then take 18 months to even nominate someone to 
be able to deal with ag policy, our ag folks are really looking 
for results on this, and are not hopeful. And I know that is 
putting a lot on you as you are stepping into this, but showing 
some of those results and showing we can actually move from it 
``being nice if'' to actually getting it done will be very 
hopeful and helpful to the folks in the ag community in my 
State.
    So if you can check off the low-hanging fruit in the UK and 
in other places to show progress, and then go get some more 
deals done, that is going to be helpful to the country's 
economy. So thank you.
    The Chairman. We are waiting for potentially one or two 
more colleagues. I would just say to my friend from Oklahoma, 
you know this is a position that is going to concentrate solely 
on the question of agriculture and trade. And this is long 
overdue.
    So, like my colleague, I want us to step up and deal with 
some of these issues. Before my colleague came, we were really 
pretty far down in the weeds in terms of agriculture policy. My 
constituents really want to know what can be done to make 
fertilizer more affordable and more accessible. And we talked 
about dairy and the like.
    So we understand our colleague needs a strong trade policy. 
I want to make sure that we have both market access, and that 
we tap the potential for American farmers all over the world. 
We care deeply about everything from wheat, dairy, and the 
like. I also want to get somebody with our nominee's experience 
and expertise honed over 30 years in this area, I want to get 
him in place now, and then hold him accountable around the kind 
of issues that I think my colleague and I agree on. And that 
is, our farmers are the best on the planet. Let's just give 
them a level playing field. And that is what we are going to be 
working with our nominee on.
    Let me just check with both sides. Do we have other members 
on their way?
    Senator Crapo. No.
    The Chairman. Well, I will do a lengthy closing statement, 
and we will see what happens with others. No, I will be very 
brief.
    The point, I would just say again to our nominee, Mr. 
McKalip, is we need a smart trade policy. And it is a trade 
policy that says from the get-go, from the day you show up, if 
you are confirmed--and I am going to be supporting you very 
strongly--you are going to be all-in on the fight to expand 
access to new markets. Because our farmers can compete with 
anybody all over the world, and we want to get a level playing 
field to get access to those markets.
    As I indicated, market access and enforcing the rules, 
enforcing the law, is key. I come from a State that cares so 
much about market access. We have the geographical advantage 
with Asia. What we want to do is, we want to grow things. We 
want to make things. We want to add value to them. And then we 
want to ship them all over the world. And with the geographic 
advantage we have, this is an area where we have great 
opportunities, and a lot of these opportunities pay better than 
do the non-trade jobs because they have a higher value added.
    So you have sent us the message today in a very strong and 
clear way that you are going to be all-in on the fight to 
expand access to markets, and also to enforce the rules. And we 
are going to have to mobilize some of our trading partners to 
do more as well, because too many of them in my view--I think 
perhaps waiting to see what would happen with this position--
were waiting to see where we were headed in terms of 
agricultural trade. And I believe you are going to take us in a 
positive direction.
    So let me just check with my friend from Idaho. Is there 
anything else you wanted to add?
    Senator Crapo. No; we are ready.
    The Chairman. All right.
    With that, we tell our nominee we thank you. We wish you 
well. I would also like to say to members with respect to our 
process for additional questions, the deadline for members to 
submit questions for the record will be tomorrow, Friday, July 
29th, at 5 p.m. This is a firm deadline.
    And with that, I thank our nominee, and the hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


                Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Idaho
    Welcome, Mr. McKalip, and congratulations on your nomination. I 
took the opportunity to listen to your band BoxCartel. You're hitting 
the right notes there. With your trade policy experience, I hope that--
if confirmed--you'll also hit the right notes on improving 
opportunities for our farmers and ranchers.

    America's farmers continue to prove their resilience and 
productivity every day, and will keep doing so. But's it not easy. 
Americans are painfully aware that gas prices are up 42 percent from a 
year ago. What fewer people may know is that the price for diesel rose 
by an even greater margin--68 percent. This hits our farmers hard.

    Back in March, a fourth-generation farmer in Meridian, ID explained 
that the cost of filling up his tractor had doubled in a year to $800. 
However, one bright factor for America's farmers right now is exports, 
with sales of agricultural products overseas reaching $177 billion in 
2021. America's farmers sell more high-quality products to consumers 
around the world than ever before.

    In Idaho, if we kept what our 24,000 farms produced within the 
State, each Idahoan would have to eat 209 slices of bread, 40 potatoes, 
3 pounds of sugar, 2 pounds of cheese, 2 pounds of beef, and a cup of 
beans--every single day. Fortunately, Idaho's agricultural products 
also feed the Nation and the world, exporting one of every six rows of 
Idaho potatoes and 50 percent of Idaho's wheat.

    Nationally, 1 in 3 acres planted in the United States will be 
exported. But we can sell even more. What is holding us back is, again, 
a misplaced Biden administration policy: a moratorium on new trade 
agreements, and limited enforcement of existing agreements.

    The administration is crystal clear that it prefers to not pursue 
real trade agreements in favor of something it calls ``frameworks,'' 
which lack crucial market access obligations. This is confusing, since 
market access is the main problem our farmers and ranchers face.

    A lot of our potential trading partners maintain high agricultural 
tariffs and regulatory measures that are essentially a guise for 
protectionism. We need to tear them down. For example, India applies an 
average agricultural tariff of 36 percent. It also applies a number of 
non-science-based restrictions on U.S. agriculture, such as 
unreasonable GMO certifications on apples, potatoes, soybeans, wheat, 
and other crops.

    If America wants to sell crops in India, these are exactly the 
types of issues that must be addressed. Moreover, the need to find new 
markets is particularly compelling, because we must diversify our 
customer base.

    China is currently our largest agricultural export destination. But 
we need new markets to reduce our dependency and increase our leverage. 
Securing these markets will require more than frameworks where 
government officials can just talk. It requires binding commitments 
that ensure our farmers can sell. Put plainly, our farmers and ranchers 
deserve our trading partners' markets to be as open to our commerce as 
ours is to theirs. Hopefully, we can start a conversation today on how 
to apply our nominee's experience and talents toward that goal.

    With that, I look forward to hearing the nominee's testimony and 
his responses to our questions. I also look forward to the nominee's 
next album when that comes out.

                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of Douglas J. McKalip, Nominated to be Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator, United States Trade Representative, Executive 
                        Office of the President
    Chair Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, my 
name is Doug McKalip. I am honored to appear before you as the 
President's nominee for Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative. I am joined here today by my 
wife Debbie, our two children ages 17 and 19, and my mom Gloria, who 
shares the same rural roots in northwestern Pennsylvania as I do.

    In a Federal career spanning nearly 3 decades, I have served in a 
wide range of capacities at the United States Department of 
Agriculture, which have built upon my rural roots, and positioned me to 
ensure that farmers and farm workers throughout the supply chain are 
successful and can advance rural economies. Most recently, I have 
served as Senior Advisor for Trade and National Security to the 
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. In this role, I have stood toe 
to toe and worked hand in hand with trading partners to ensure 
international market access for our products.

    If confirmed to this position, I will build on this progress as 
Ambassador Tai and USTR aim to bring more U.S. goods to customers and 
markets around the world.

    I would like highlight two initiatives that I worked on that 
underscore our commitment to our producers, farmers, and ranchers.

    Recently, at USDA, I helped spearhead negotiations that led to 
greater market access in Mexico for U.S.-grown potatoes. This meant 
aligning our trade and regulatory experts to reach a successful outcome 
on a trade issue that was more than 10 years in the making. I am proud 
of the results and believe that we need to double down in our resolve 
to get similar tangible outcomes for our producers on a wide range of 
commodities.

    This win was the result of close collaboration between USDA and 
USTR. It is vital for our agriculture industry and our producers that 
we maintain this partnership--and based on my history at USDA, I look 
forward to doing exactly that.

    I have also been directly involved in negotiations with my Canadian 
counterparts on dairy policy. This experience has provided me a direct 
appreciation for the difficult steps and tenacity that we must exhibit 
to ensure that the promises of past trade agreements are realized. I 
know that many Americans have grown weary of trade and question whether 
the promises in various agreements will benefit their bottom line.

    That is why Ambassador Tai has emphasized the importance of our 
trading partners following through on their commitments in bilateral 
and multilateral engagement. Earlier this month, we celebrated the 
second anniversary of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement's entry 
into force. If confirmed, I can assure members of this committee that 
utilizing full enforcement authority under USMCA and our other trade 
commitments and initiatives around the globe will be a top priority for 
me.

    I also look forward to ensuring farmers and ranchers are front and 
center as USTR looks to strengthen our trade relationships, execute new 
initiatives, and address challenges like China. USTR initiatives such 
as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity present an 
excellent opportunity to knock down regulatory barriers and help our 
producers expand exports. And as we all know, China has failed to live 
up to its commitments under the Phase One agreement. As Ambassador Tai 
works to realign the U.S.-China trade relationship and partners with 
allies to confront China's unfair trade policies, I will use my 
position as Chief Agricultural Negotiator to ensure American farmers 
and ranchers get a fair deal.

    Additionally, farmers and ranchers in the U.S. need an advocate to 
help ensure they have affordable access to input materials they need to 
operate. These are times of tremendous opportunity in international 
trade. But if the bills that farmers have to pay for their inputs 
negate those gains, we will have missed that opportunity.

    Finally, these are important times around the globe, and never 
before have food security and national security been as directly linked 
as they are today. It is vital that the Chief Agricultural Negotiator 
be on the job and be equipped to deal with all the facets of the 
challenges and opportunities ahead. I am uniquely qualified for the 
task ahead.

    Congress is the executive branch's constitutional partner on trade. 
If confirmed, I look forward to close collaboration with this committee 
and Congress, since our strength in international trade depends upon 
our unity and strength here at home. I value the opinions and expertise 
of this committee and benefiting from our dialogue going forward.

    I look forward to responding to questions that members of the 
committee might have. Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name: Douglas James McKalip.

 2.  Position to which nominated: Chief Agricultural Negotiator, USTR.

 3.  Date of nomination: June 8, 2022.

 4.  Address:

 5.  Date and place of birth: January 8, 1971, Greenville, PA.

 6.  Marital status:

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        University of Pittsburgh (1989-1993); Bachelor of Arts, 1993.

        The American University (1993-1995); Masters of Public Policy, 
        1995.

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture (Trade, National 
        Security, Animal and Plant Health); March 2021 to the present.

        Senior Advisor, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, USDA-APHIS, 
        October 2017 to March 2021.

        Director, Bioengineered Food Disclosure and Acting Director, 
        Country of Origin Labeling, USDA-AMS, September 2016 to October 
        2017.

        Acting Chief of Staff, United States Department of Agriculture, 
        August to September 2016.

        Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
        United States Department of Agriculture, March 2015 to 
        September 2016.

        Senior Policy Advisor for Rural Affairs, Domestic Policy 
        Council, Executive Office of the President, the White House, 
        February 2011 to March 2015 (Senior Executive, Level III).

        Confidential Assistant to the Secretary, United States 
        Department of Agriculture, February 2009 to March 2011 (GS-15).

        Director of Legislative and Public Affairs, USDA Natural 
        Resources Conservation Service, January 2001 to February 2009.

        Legislative Specialist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 
        Service, June 1994 to January 2001.

        White House Intern, January 1994 to June 1996.

        Legislative Fellow, United States Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) 
        and the Senate Appropriations Committee, 1992.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        None.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        None.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        President, Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society, 1992-1993, University 
        of Pittsburgh.

        Licensed Marriage Officiate, District of Columbia (since 2004).

        Member of country music band ``BoxCartel'' since 2010.

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18.

       None.

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination.

       None.

        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination.

       None

14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        Executive Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, 2020.

        Fellow, California Agricultural Leadership Foundation, DC 
        Exchange, 2018.

        Honoree, NRCS Chief's Circle of Excellence Award, 2007 and 
        2005.

        Graduate, Leadership for a Democratic Society, Federal 
        Executive Institute, Charlottesville, VA, 2005.

        Recipient, USDA Civil Rights Award (for expansion of Farm Bill 
        conservation programs to Tribal lands), 2005.

        Berg Fellow, Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1998.

        Participant in the Student Council for U.S. Affairs (SCUSA) at 
        the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 1991.

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

        Co-author, ``A Watershed Effort: The 20th Anniversary of the 
        Watershed Rehabilitation Act.'' Published by the Association of 
        State Dam Safety Officials, 2021, https://damsafety-
        prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Caldwell_Rehab%20Leg
        islation%2020th%20Anniversary_1.

        Author, ``As Pittsburgh as They Come,'' Pittsburgh Post Gazette 
        (2020), https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2020/12/21/
        The-Next-Paqe-Pittsburgh-Dave-Lander-Doug-McKalip-Pirates-game-
        baseball-Squiggy/stories/2020122100
        80.

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates):

        Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference (Spring, 2022), 
        https://www.
        google.com/
        url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=&cad=ria&uact=8&ve
        d=2ahUKEwilm8_4rez3AhUHqXIEHXAwAyMQtwJ68AgKEAl&url=https%3A%2
        F%2Fvideo.ibm.com%2Frecorded%2F131531053&usg=AOvVaw1Ge0WgfbzVp42
        R
        s7ag27mV.

        Bio-Cyber Challenges, hosted by Colorado State (Fall, 2021), 
        https://www.
        google.com/
        url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ve
        d=2ahUKEwiG6aW_ruz3AhXNnnlEHXMGA1sQtwJ6BAgFEAl&url=https%3A%
        2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUoXZ3xg3Qqw&usg=AOvVaw0k56
        ig1fSNOTKsNH7feFU3.

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        I am a both well prepared and uniquely qualified to serve as 
        Chief Agricultural Negotiator position for the United States 
        Trade Representative. With almost 3 decades of experience in 
        Federal agriculture policy, I have worked on all aspects of 
        farm production--from soil conservation and seed technology up 
        through the supply chain, with a specialty in international 
        trade. My strength has always been getting to know and 
        understand farmers, and advocating on behalf of U.S. farm 
        products, which I have done on six continents. I have also 
        repeatedly demonstrated an ability to find common ground and 
        sort through difficult negotiations when opposing views arise.

        I have experience serving at the highest levels of the 
        Executive Office of the President and will be a strong advocate 
        for agriculture trade within the White House organization. I 
        have extensive contacts and friendships in farming around the 
        country and will draw upon that strength to identify and 
        realize gains for rural economies. I have extensive experience 
        in farm conservation practices at a time when American farmers 
        need an international advocate to demonstrate the 
        sustainability, investments, and quality of U.S. food products. 
        I also understand the historic opportunities and challenges 
        presented by current geopolitical tensions and alliances and am 
        equipped to ensure that the U.S. realizes its goals in times of 
        adversity. If confirmed, I will serve as an effective and 
        reliable advocate on behalf of the United States farmers around 
        the globe.

                   B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        Yes.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        No.

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable?

        Yes.

                   C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        My spouse is a defense/intelligence contractor with the Office 
        of the Director of National Intelligence under contract with 
        Leidos Inc. I do not believe her employment in this capacity 
        would present a conflict of interest.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        None.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
Government need not be listed.

        None.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        None.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

        None.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation?

        No.

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation?

        No.

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or noto 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense?

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        None.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.
 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
        Questions Submitted for the Record to Douglas J. McKalip
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
   sps rules potential for the indo-pacific economic framework (ipef)
    Question. Many of our trading partners maintain SPS measures which 
are ostensibly used to protect health, but are really just a form of 
disguised protectionism to keep out U.S. agricultural products. You 
helped address one such barrier, which was Mexico's restrictions on the 
importation of U.S. potatoes. I strongly believe that such safety 
measures must be supported by legitimate science.

    With respect to IPEF, do you think it makes sense to pursue rules 
to ensure health and food safety measures that are based on science--
like those found in the WTO SPS agreement?

    Answer. Absolutely. If confirmed I will pursue high-standard 
commitments from IPEF partners to advance the implementation of science 
and risk-based agricultural policies, and improve transparency in the 
development of import rules and regulations.

    Question. Such rules are enforceable under free trade agreements--
but how do we make them enforceable in the context of this new 
``framework,'' or executive agreement?

    Answer. If confirmed, I would pursue elements in the IPEF trade 
pillar to include high-standard, science-based commitments on 
agriculture that promote U.S. competitiveness and inclusive prosperity. 
USTR expects to develop the enforcement framework for the trade pillar 
through discussions and robust engagement with Congress, stakeholders, 
and our foreign partners.
              transparency and congressional consultation
    Question. There is bipartisan concern that USTR is not adequately 
consulting with Congress on trade policy. That's particularly a shame 
when it comes to agricultural trade policy because Congress is very 
close to our farmers and ranchers. I believe we both agree that U.S. 
trade policy is strongest when Congress and the administration are 
working together.

    To that end, do you agree Congress should see all administration 
proposals for binding trade obligations, before they are provided to 
our trading partners, so members can provide meaningful input?

    Answer. I believe that the administration should share negotiating 
text with Congress before sharing it with outside stakeholders and 
trading partners.

    In addition, in my 30-year career, I have been an effective 
advocate for America's farmers and ranchers. I recognize that having 
the voice of both the executive branch and the legislative branch 
unified on farm issues puts me in the best position to continue to get 
results for farmers and ranchers. Therefore, I would certainly plan to 
consult closely with Congress and solicit input that would inform my 
work.

                              carbon taxes
    Question. Farmers are paying higher costs for a number of inputs 
including diesel fuel. The Biden administration wants the United States 
to be open to consideration of carbon border adjustment--or carbon 
tariffs. In fact, in a number of initiatives, the Biden administration 
urges ``de-carbonization.''

    Do you agree the administration should first analyze and share with 
Congress the potential impact of any carbon tariffs on our farmers and 
agricultural interests, before trying to advance any such tax 
initiative?

    Answer. I understand the importance of close consultation with 
Congress including on any potential issues regarding carbon border 
tariffs and would consult with Congress on the impact to farmers and 
agricultural interests should USTR move forward with action related to 
carbon border tariffs.

                      usmca and biotech approvals
    Question. You have a great deal of familiarity with the issues 
concerning biotech crops. American innovation helps our farmers achieve 
extraordinary productivity. However, a number of countries--including 
Mexico--are utilizing that very innovativeness as an excuse to restrict 
our products. In particular, Mexico has stopped approving U.S. biotech 
products. USMCA included rules to reduce barriers to U.S. biotech 
crops.

    If confirmed, would you make market access for biotech crops into 
Mexico a priority?

    Answer. If confirmed, I would prioritize Mexico returning to a 
science- and risk-based regulatory approval process for biotech 
products. I am familiar with the critical role of biotech products in 
helping U.S. farmers meet their sustainable production goals and in 
increasing crop yield and farm incomes. I would carefully consider 
strategy on Mexico's biotech policies, including looking at all the 
tools under the USMCA.
                     china and phase one agreement
    Question. Earlier this year during a House Agriculture Committee 
hearing, Secretary Vilsack stated that China did not come through on 
several commitments it made under the Phase One agreement. Clearly, 
China has not met its purchasing commitments, but there are also 
questions about whether China met its structural commitments for 
agriculture, including reforming its agricultural biotech approval 
process.

    If confirmed, will you prioritize Phase One enforcement, including 
the structural commitments?

    Answer. I recognize that China is an important market for U.S. 
agriculture, and not just for the major commodities, but for a variety 
of U.S. food and agricultural producers. If confirmed, I intend to hold 
China accountable for its structural commitments in the Phase One 
agreement, including China's commitment to maintain transparent, 
predictable, science-based regulatory policies regarding agricultural 
biotechnology approvals.

    I would intend to engage with China, as well as work with trading 
partners, to ensure that the terms of competition are fair with respect 
to agricultural trade. I also intend to work to expand and diversify 
the opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers to export their goods 
to reliable trading partners worldwide.
                          mexico potato access
    Question. After 25 years in dispute, the U.S. potato industry had a 
positive breakthrough this past May, in shipping fresh potatoes to all 
of Mexico. Now that Mexico received what it wanted, I am concerned it 
may backslide its commitments for our potato exports. In fact, just 
last week, we saw the Mexican potato industry continue a legal battle 
to overturn this new access.

    Will you commit to using every tool at USTR's disposal to ensure 
that U.S. potatoes maintain access to the Mexican market?

    Answer. At USDA, I helped spearhead negotiations that led to 
expanded market access for U.S. fresh potatoes and, if confirmed, I 
would work with USDA to closely monitor developments in Mexico and use 
the appropriate tools to ensure there is transparent and predictable 
access for U.S. growers.
                           u.s.-canada dairy
    Question. Canadian tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for U.S. dairy 
products under USMCA have been a consistent point of frustration for 
U.S. dairy exporters who have been waiting to see the access promised 
under the agreement be fully realized. Now in addition to the first 
dispute, which the U.S. won, New Zealand has launched their own 
consultations on Canadian dairy TRQs under CPTPP, and the U.S. has 
launched a second set of consultations on the same issue under USMCA.

    What are you going to do to make sure the second consultations on 
this matter result in improved access and actual outcomes for U.S. 
stakeholders?

    How do you intend to ensure the first-ever dispute under USMCA--and 
U.S. win--is not lost in a cycle of consultations and disputes?

    Answer. Having been directly involved in negotiations with Canadian 
officials on dairy policy, I share the frustration of U.S. dairy 
exporters that the market access for U.S. dairy products Canada 
committed to under the USMCA has been undermined by its allocation 
measures. If confirmed, I would strategically consider next steps to 
ensure Canada lives up to its USMCA commitments.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark R. Warner
    Question. Here in Virginia, we are particularly proud of our 
poultry industry, which plays a pivotal role in the Commonwealth 
agricultural economy. Virginia is consistently a top-10 poultry 
producing State (9th in broilers and 6th in turkeys as of 2021).

    The poultry industry in Virginia directly employs over 17,000 
individuals and generates an additional 37,000 jobs in businesses 
supporting the industry. The industry also directly supports the 
livelihood of nearly 1,100 farm families. I know this industry is also 
incredibly important to many other State economies represented by 
members of this committee.

    I have long sought to protect the interests of our poultry 
producers and expand market access for our producers overseas. In 
recent years, I worked with a large bipartisan coalition to help reopen 
the Chinese market for Virginia/U.S. poultry products after a multiyear 
bar that negatively impacted the industry. Now, with your help, I am 
hoping we can continue to expand market access for our poultry 
producers.

    One area I would like to see improvement is our trade relationship 
with India, particularly as it relates to agriculture/poultry. As you 
know, our poultry growers face an almost insurmountable barrier to 
entry in India.

    While India has signaled their willingness to accept trade on U.S. 
poultry products, it maintains a trade-restrictive tariff rate that 
effectively keeps U.S. poultry out of that market--despite not having a 
robust domestic turkey industry.

    In this position, how would you work with India to reduce these 
barriers to entry and work to increase access and lower tariffs for 
U.S. food and agricultural products--particularly poultry?

    Will you commit to prioritizing U.S. poultry in conversations/
negotiations within USTR and with your Indian counterparts?

    Answer. In November 2021, Ambassador Tai and Indian Trade Minister 
Goyal relaunched the United States-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF), with 
a view to advancing the goal, announced by both presidents to ``develop 
an ambitious, shared vision for the future of the trade relationship.'' 
The Ministers underlined the significance of the TPF in forging robust 
bilateral trade ties and enhancing the bilateral economic relationship 
to benefit working people in both countries. They agreed that 
reconvening the TPF and regular engagement under the forum would help 
in addressing outstanding bilateral trade concerns and allow the two 
countries to explore important, emerging trade policy issues. Since 
that time, USTR has continued to raise agricultural market access 
issues through the TPF and in other bilateral engagement. If confirmed 
as Chief Agricultural Negotiator at USTR, I intend to engage with India 
through the TPF, the WTO, and other forums, to improve agricultural 
market access for U.S. poultry and other products, including through 
the reduction of applied tariffs.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Sasse
    Question. In January 2020, the U.S. and China signed the Phase One 
trade deal. Since then, China has fallen well short of its commitments, 
including those in the ag sector. What actions should the 
administration take to hold China accountable to its commitments?

    Answer. I recognize that China fell short of meeting its Phase One 
purchase commitments. I also believe that an overreliance on the China 
market, given China's use of economic coercion, often targeted at 
agricultural products, can threaten the livelihoods of U.S. 
agricultural producers. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, 
I intend to engage with China as well as work with other trading 
partners to ensure that the terms of competition are fair with respect 
to agricultural trade. I also intend to work to expand and diversify 
the opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers to export their goods 
to reliable trading partners worldwide.

    Question. Phase One of the U.S.-China trade deal also requires 
China to provide more transparency in the area of meat trade. How 
successful has the U.S. been in enforcing this requirement?

    Answer. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I intend to 
hold China accountable for its structural commitments in the Phase One 
agreement, including those related to the trade in meat and meat 
products, where transparency has been lacking.

    Question. The EU is pursuing a European Green Deal that could 
significantly increase barriers for U.S. exports. A USDA analysis also 
found that these EU actions could reduce food production and increase 
global food prices. What concrete steps should the administration take 
to counter these EU actions in order to preserve U.S. ag export access 
to EU markets?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my EU counterpart to 
advocate for U.S. agriculture and to bridge any issues that may appear 
during the EU's implementation of their Green Deal. Many of our farmers 
and ranchers have taken steps to lower their carbon footprint and 
increase sustainability and, if confirmed, I will work to ensure our 
trade negotiations seek to give them credit for these actions.

    Question. Which countries would you prioritize with regard to 
reaching new trade agreements?

    Answer. As I mentioned during my hearing, the Indo-Pacific region 
provides tremendous opportunity for our farmers and ranchers. If 
confirmed, I would work to ensure the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework 
(IPEP) increases export opportunities for our farmers and ranchers by 
knocking down barriers and establishing clear and fair rules for our 
exporters.

    Question. Establishing a trade deal with Kenya could create a model 
for future agreements in Africa and create additional markets for U.S. 
ag products. What is the status of negotiations with Kenya on a new 
trade agreement?

    Answer. On July 14, 2022, USTR announced the launch of the U.S.-
Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership (STIP). Ambassador Tai 
and Kenyan Cabinet Secretary Maina agreed that their governments will 
pursue enhanced engagement leading to high-standard commitments in a 
wide range of areas with a view to increasing investment; promoting 
sustainable and inclusive economic growth, benefiting workers, 
consumers, and businesses; and supporting African regional economic 
integration. If confirmed, I will work with our farmers and ranchers to 
make sure their interests are served by this initiative.

    Question. The USTR has been actively engaging with the UK on a 
number of trade issues and the USDA recently concluded a trade mission 
there. However, a number of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers 
remain, including those affecting beef and pork. Will you work toward 
persuading the UK to adhere to Codex and other international production 
standards?

    Answer. As a food import-dependent country, the UK has an 
opportunity to enhance its food security by adopting international, 
science-based standards that facilitate the trade and import of 
agricultural products. If confirmed, I will take every opportunity to 
encourage our UK colleagues to adopt science-based policies and, where 
possible, consider unilateral tariff reductions for non-sensitive 
products, to facilitate U.S. agricultural exports and increase our 
bilateral trade.
                                biotech
    Question. How best can the U.S. promote a science-based approach to 
harmonizing biotechnology in ag trade?

    Answer. I am committed to working together with our trading 
partners and international allies to uphold science- and risk-based, 
transparent, and predictable policies that support commercialization 
and trade of innovative biotechnology products that enable sustainable 
agriculture; provide new tools to farmers to address drought, diseases, 
and pests; reduce food loss and waste; and supply consumers with 
healthier and more sustainable products. I fully intend to engage with 
U.S. trading partners to ensure that they fulfill their trade 
obligations and address issues that affect the commercialization of 
agricultural biotechnology products. At the same time, I intend to work 
with like-minded countries to ensure consumers and producers have 
access to accurate information on the safety of agricultural 
biotechnology products.
                         thailand pork barriers
    Question. Thailand has put in place trade barriers that constitute 
a de facto ban on U.S. pork exports to the country. These barriers 
include a ractopamine ban, restrictions on uncooked pork products and 
offal, and permit refusals. How do you plan to address the access of 
U.S. pork to the Thailand market?

    Answer. The United States already removed approximately one third 
of Thailand's GSP benefits at the end of 2020 due to Thailand's failure 
to provide equitable and reasonable market access for U.S. pork. I 
pledge to work tirelessly to remove Thailand's multiple restrictions on 
the importation of U.S. pork, and to advocate that the import 
requirements that U.S. producers face in Thailand and around the globe 
be based on science and risk, minimally burdensome, and consistent with 
our trading partners' WTO obligations.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
                        ag trade and innovation
    Question. Oregon farmers grow and ship the best ag products in the 
world--from blueberries to wheat to alfalfa--that make their way into 
supermarkets and onto tables everywhere from Canada to China. Access to 
the latest innovations and best practices on everything from biotech to 
soil conservation makes our farmers and ranchers back home the best and 
most productive in the world.

    This same technology and innovation has, unfortunately, become a 
quick and easy target for foreign regulators trying to protect their 
domestic producers from U.S. competition. For instance, our trading 
partners in Mexico, the EU, and China have a long history of dragging 
their feet on approving products of biotechnology.

    If confirmed, how will you ensure U.S. innovations are not used 
against our farmers? How will you ensure these regulatory barriers do 
not prevent our exports?

    Answer. I agree this is a major issue and pushing our trading 
partners to eliminate unfair regulatory barriers will be a top priority 
for me. If confirmed, I will promote production practices that support 
U.S. farmers and workers, including through provisions in U.S. trade 
agreements. I fully intend to engage with China, Mexico, the EU, and 
others to ensure that U.S. trading partners fulfill their international 
trade obligations and address issues that affect the commercialization 
of agricultural biotechnology products.
                             market access
    Question. As previously mentioned, Oregon's farmers and ranchers 
grow the world's best products. If confirmed, you'll be tasked with 
identifying and eliminating any barriers that block these world-
renowned products from markets abroad.

    In some cases, those barriers might be tariffs. But, more often 
than not, our farmers and ranchers are shut out of foreign markets by 
regulation and red tape. These are things like SPS measures, technical 
standards, and bureaucratic customs procedures. They might sound 
innocent enough, but they inflict real pain on U.S. exporters.

    This administration has announced a range of new and innovative 
trade initiatives in big, bustling markets--like the Indo-Pacific--that 
aim to bulldoze non-tariff barriers to trade for U.S. farmers and 
ranchers.

    If confirmed, how will you ensure that these efforts produce real, 
tangible benefits for the potato farmer in Malheur County, the wheat 
farmer in Umatilla County, or the mid-Willamette Valley farmers growing 
berries and grass seed?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek tangible results for U.S. 
agricultural producers. Within the trade pillar of the Indo-Pacific 
Economic Framework (IPEF), I would encourage our trading partners to 
implement science-based measures and eliminate non-tariff barriers that 
prevent American producers from accessing markets in the region, where 
demand for U.S. food and agricultural products is rapidly increasing.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
    Question. The administration has told us that the Indo-Pacific 
Economic Framework will not have enforcement mechanisms, which will 
make it harder to ensure foreign markets are open to American exports. 
I'm not sure of the value of principles or frameworks if at the end of 
the day you don't have binding commitments to provide preferred access 
between trading partners. I fought for enforceable labor rights in 
USMCA and intellectual property rights in the Korea-U.S. free trade 
agreement. Importantly, trade agreements allow agriculture in my 
State--whether apples, fish, French fries, or wheat--to be exported 
across the globe. Similarly, as you noted in your opening statement, 
China is not living up to its commitments made in the Phase One 
agreement.

    What specific steps do you believe the United States--and USTR 
specifically--should take, first, in the context of IPEF, and second, 
with regard to Phase One, to ensure American agricultural products do 
not face barriers to market access and are well positioned in the 
global marketplace?

    Answer. In the context of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework 
(IPEF), USTR expects to develop the enforcement framework for the trade 
pillar through discussions and robust engagement with Congress, 
stakeholders, and our foreign partners. To better position U.S. 
producers in the Indo-Pacific region, USTR is seeking high-standard 
agricultural commitments from IPEF members to advance the 
implementation of science-based policies and improve transparency in 
the development of import rules and regulations. If confirmed as Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator, I would work to reduce longstanding 
impediments to safe, wholesome U.S. agricultural products, and thereby 
increase market access in China and the Indo-Pacific for U.S. farmers, 
ranchers, and producers. I would also work to enforce existing trade 
agreements, using all available tools.
                              india apples
    Question. Washington apple exports to India have declined quickly 
after India placed retaliatory tariffs on the product in June 2019, 
declining from a $120 million market in 2018 to $21 million in 2021. 
Right now, India is increasing apple imports from Iran, Chile and 
Turkey, markets that do not have high labor and environmental 
standards. This is directly impacting apple growers in Washington State 
who have seen exports to India drop.

    I believe this is another reason we need to work to get the 
retaliatory tariffs dropped. We need to be focusing on reopening and 
making gains in huge markets like India.

    What does the U.S. need to do to get India to eliminate its 
retaliatory tariffs against U.S. producers? Don't you agree that 
eliminating these tariffs should be USTR's focus?

    Answer. I appreciate you raising India's retaliatory tariffs on 
apples. In November 2021, Ambassador Tai and Indian Trade Minister 
Goyal relaunched the United States-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF), with 
a view to advancing the goal, announced by both presidents to ``develop 
an ambitious, shared vision for the future of the trade relationship.'' 
The Ministers underlined the significance of the TPF in forging robust 
bilateral trade ties and enhancing the bilateral economic relationship 
to benefit working people in both countries. They agreed that 
reconvening the TPF and regular engagement under the forum would help 
in addressing outstanding bilateral trade concerns and allow the two 
countries to explore important, emerging trade policy issues. Since 
that time, USTR has continued to raise agricultural market access 
issues, including tariff reductions through the TPF and in other 
bilateral engagement. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I 
intend to engage with India through the TPF, the WTO, and other fora to 
improve agricultural market access for U.S. apples and other products, 
including through the reduction of applied tariffs.

    Question. I understand that apples will be a topic in side 
discussions at the regional trade meetings in the fall.

    What steps need to be taken at this meeting to improve market 
access in India?

    If confirmed to serve as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for USTR, 
can you commit to working on ways to reduce or eliminate tariffs to 
improve market access for apples in India?

    Answer. In November 2021, Ambassador Tai and Indian Trade Minister 
Goyal relaunched the United States-India Trade Policy Forum, with a 
view to advancing the goal, announced by both presidents to ``develop 
an ambitious, shared vision for the future of the trade relationship.'' 
The Ministers underlined the significance of the TPF in forging robust 
bilateral trade ties and enhancing the bilateral economic relationship 
to benefit working people in both countries. They agreed that 
reconvening the TPF and regular engagement under the forum would help 
in addressing outstanding bilateral trade concerns and allow the two 
countries to explore important, emerging trade policy issues. Since 
that time, USTR has continued to raise agricultural market access 
issues, including tariff reductions through the TPF and in other 
bilateral engagement. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I 
intend to engage with India through the TPF, the WTO, and other fora to 
improve agricultural market access for U.S. apples and other products, 
including through the reduction of applied tariffs.

    Question. I know it is not your decision, but as someone focused on 
increasing trade in agriculture, I know the farmers in my State, and I 
am fairly sure farmers across America, want to get rid of the policies 
that have led to tariffs that are hurting them.

    Can you commit to me that in this new position, when you are in the 
discussions within USTR, with the Department of Agriculture, and across 
the administration, you will advocate for U.S. farmers with regard to 
the elimination of tariffs?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate for farmers, ranchers, 
fishermen, and agricultural producers, just as I have done in my 
lengthy civil service career. Current food security challenges have 
shed a new light on importance of agricultural trade to ensure access 
to safe and affordable food worldwide. If confirmed as Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator, I intend to advocate for the removal of trade 
barriers to help U.S. farmers supply food and agricultural commodities 
to meet demand all over the world.

    Question. Exports by the Washington State dairy industry have grown 
to $627 million in 2021, including about $300 million to Southeast 
Asia. Washington State dairy producers have grown exports markets 
despite international competitors increasing their market access 
through new trade agreements. This has been particularly true in 
Southeast Asia and the United Kingdom, where domestic dairy consumption 
is supported by imported dairy products. We need to secure more access 
in markets that are in demand of dairy products.

    If you are confirmed to serve as the Chief Agricultural Trade 
Negotiator at the Office of the United States Trade Representative, how 
you will work with Ambassador Tai and your colleagues to target markets 
that are in demand of dairy products and reduce trade barriers that 
impede Washington State dairy exports in these demand markets?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will use all of the tools in our toolbox to 
ensure that U.S. agricultural exporters, including dairy exporters, can 
access markets around the world. I intend to address foreign barriers 
to U.S. agricultural exports through existing agreements, and in 
ongoing and future initiatives to reach trade-facilitating agreements 
with trading partners. This includes negotiations under the Indo-
Pacific Economic Framework to establish science- and risk-based 
disciplines to help facilitate U.S. agricultural exports. At the same 
time, I intend to hold trading partners accountable to their 
international commitments and ensure U.S. dairy exporters can continue 
supplying the growing demand for U.S. dairy products around the world.

    Question. Like numerous other agricultural products, U.S. wine 
exports continue to face retaliatory tariffs in critical markets like 
China. At the same time, foreign competitors are expanding market 
access in other top markets around the world through free trade 
agreements. The United Kingdom is a good example where U.S. wine 
producers have seen great success, wine is the number one US 
agricultural export to the UK. However, U.S. wineries lack the same 
market access as many competitors and face significant challenges 
growing their market share as a result.

    In the absence of an FTA, how will the Biden administration expand 
UK market access for highly value-added specialty crops like wine so 
that U.S. producers can build on their success there?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with my UK counterparts to 
identify opportunities to deepen our bilateral trade ties, particularly 
for products like wine for which there is clear demand in the UK for 
access to American-made products.
                                  wwtg
    Question. The U.S. just recently assumed the chairmanship of the 
World Wine Trade Group (WWTG), a unique, treaty-level organization that 
works to expand export opportunities and reduce trade barriers for U.S. 
wine exporters. For many years, USTR's Office of Agricultural Affairs 
has led the U.S. Government delegation to the WWTG and as chair will be 
in a position to advance key priorities during the U.S. chairmanship.

    What priorities will you focus on during your time as Chair of the 
WWTG?

    Answer. For over 20 years after the establishment of the WWTG in 
1998, the group focused on concluding agreements among the members. If 
confirmed, I would focus on tapping into the deep technical and trade 
policy expertise and strong relationships in the group to coordinate on 
tackling trade barriers in third-country markets.

                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
    Question. As you know, the WTO's 12th ministerial conference just 
concluded with agreement on many of the issues that were before the 
body. One area that members did not reach a substantive agreement on is 
agriculture. We both know that when WTO members break the rules with 
outsized agricultural subsidies, it crowds out small farmers and 
threatens the food security of less developed countries. Farm workers 
right here in the United States and across the globe are often the 
victims.

    Could you please describe your approach to future WTO negotiations 
on agricultural subsidies and how that strategy will support 
agricultural workers here at home?

    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to pursue agricultural negotiations 
in the WTO to reflect current challenges, and to seek ways to encourage 
members to recommit to adherence to a rules-based system, as well as 
transparency, which is essential and fundamental for creating and 
strengthening resiliency in global agricultural markets and achieving 
food security.

    Question. Our home State of Pennsylvania ranks seventh in the 
Nation in total milk production. In fact, the dairy industry in 
Pennsylvania supports nearly 52,000 jobs and contributes $14.7 billion 
to the State's economy. Trade plays a big role in demand for 
Pennsylvania's high-quality dairy products. Our trade relationship with 
the European Union (EU) as it regards dairy is becoming increasingly 
imbalanced, with the United States importing more than $2 billion worth 
of dairy products from the EU last year while U.S. farmers have 
difficulty accessing their market.

    How can we better tackle our trade relationship with the EU to 
create a more level playing field for dairy farmers here in the United 
States?

    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to build trust and facilitate needed 
dialogue on various agricultural issues and utilize every opportunity 
for our two sides to begin exploring ways to strengthen our trade 
relationship, remove unjustified trade barriers, and level the playing 
field for all our farmers, including for U.S. dairy farmers.

    Question. Plant and animal diseases are a significant risk to both 
the U.S. and global food system. New pathogens like tar spot, which was 
first found in Pennsylvania in 2020, present significant risks to 
agricultural yields. This year, Indonesia has been suffering a major 
outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, estimated to cause an annual loss 
of $1.37 billion to the Indonesian economy.

    How will you work to ensure that U.S. trade policy incorporates 
provisions to protect the United States against plant and animal 
pathogens, especially those that are zoonotic, while balancing the 
interests of American farmers and ranchers?

    Answer. Science-based SPS measures protect people, animals and 
plants. If confirmed, I will support the development and implementation 
of SPS measures that are necessary to protect the United States, and I 
will support the inclusion and enforcement of robust SPS provisions in 
our trade agreements. At the same time, I will work to identify and 
remove SPS measures implemented by our trading partners that are 
discriminatory, unduly burdensome, or not based on scientific evidence.

    Question. The number of people affected by hunger rose in 2021 to 
828 million, an increase of about 150 million since 2019.

    How will you work to negotiate agreements that address rather than 
exacerbate this unprecedented global food security crisis?

    Answer. The United States is in a position of strength as a major 
agricultural producer to address the current challenges facing global 
food security. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I would 
be front and center advocating for maintaining strong, rules-based and 
open markets that provide consumers and producers the needed 
predictability in these uncertain times, and allow us to tackle any 
food security challenges in the future.

    Question. Fraudulent imported organic products not only affect our 
country's trade integrity, but they have the potential to harm overall 
consumer confidence in U.S. grown organic products. Additionally, when 
fraudulent imported organic products enter our domestic market, U.S. 
farmers struggle to remain competitive if offering higher-quality, 
higher-priced U.S. certified products.

    How will you work to ensure there is stronger oversight for 
fraudulent imported organic products? What steps will you be taking to 
enhance and strengthen organic equivalency agreements, so that U.S. 
consumers can be confident they are purchasing high-quality organic 
products equivalent to domestic products?

    Answer. I share your concerns regarding the impact of fraudulent 
imported organic products on the U.S. organics industry. If confirmed, 
I will work with USDA to explore ways to develop improved organic 
agreements to uphold the integrity of high U.S. organic standards, 
including for imported products.

    Question. For decades, the United States led the world in the 
production and promotion of organic agriculture and products. More 
recently, however, our investment in organic production, research, and 
promotion has lagged, whereas the EU's investment has dramatically 
increased.

    What investments and strategies would you suggest here to keep the 
U.S. competitive on organic?

    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with USDA to identify ways 
to keep the U.S. competitive, level the playing field for trade in U.S. 
organic food and agricultural products, and uphold the integrity of 
high U.S. organic standards, including for imported products.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso
                   vital role of agriculture in trade
    Question. The role of Chief Agricultural Negotiator is critically 
important for farmers and ranchers across the country and in my home 
State of Wyoming. Wyoming produces some of the highest quality beef, 
barley, lamb/wool and sugar beets in the world. And our producers are 
eager to expand to new international markets.

    Unsurprisingly, Wyoming's farmers and ranchers aren't impressed 
with this administration's lack of focus or clear direction on trade 
policy. We are 18 months into the Biden presidency and we are only now 
considering your nomination for this critical role. China continues to 
aggressively pursue new trade agreements while America sits on the 
sidelines. This is a mistake and one I hope you'll help correct if 
you're confirmed.

    In your testimony, you noted USTR's ``aim to bring more U.S. goods 
to customers and markets around the world.''

    Can you explain how USTR will accomplish this without aggressively 
pursuing traditional bilateral or multilateral trade agreements?

    And do you think free trade agreements still have an important role 
to play for American Agriculture?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate for the use of all available 
tools in our toolbox, as well as potential new tools, to ensure that 
U.S. agricultural stakeholders, including Wyoming farmers and ranchers, 
can access markets around the world. I intend to advocate for U.S. 
farmers, ranchers, and food producers by addressing any unjustified 
barriers to agricultural exports, through the use of bilateral and 
multilateral consultative mechanisms provided for in our existing FTAs, 
Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), and multilateral 
forums, including the WTO, to hold trading partners accountable to 
their international commitments and ensure U.S. producers can continue 
supplying growing demand for various U.S. agricultural products around 
the world.
                                 china
    Question. I believe we need to move quickly to reassert American 
global influence and strengthen our economic and national security ties 
with our allies. Agriculture trade has a big role to play in this 
effort. While the administration continues to ponder what a worker-
centric trade policy looks like, China is running circles around us. 
They are signing trade deals as quickly as they can. They are expanding 
their global footprint and asserting economic influence in all corners 
of the globe.

    How can the U.S. use agriculture exports to counter Chinese 
influence and strengthen economic ties with our allies?

    Can we successfully counter China if we fail to secure additional 
market access commitments for U.S. producers?

    Answer. The United States produces the world's best quality 
agricultural products at competitive prices, and trading partners have 
come to depend on the reliability of U.S. agricultural exports to feed 
a growing global population. As a result, U.S. food and agricultural 
producers have created powerful linkages with other countries, and this 
helps to promote the U.S. role as the global economic partner of choice 
and blunt China's efforts to expand its influence through economic 
coercion and other means. If confirmed, I intend to create and expand 
export opportunities for U.S. producers and workers in ways that 
sustain the United States' position in global agricultural markets and 
counter efforts to advance non-science-based or coercive approaches to 
agricultural trade.
                             market access
    Question. Earlier this month, I joined with several Senators on a 
letter asking you to prioritize and include market access commitments 
in U.S. trade discussions. I've discussed my concerns with this 
administration's lack of focus on market access in previous business 
before this committee. Instead of debating new trade deals, Congress 
has been left to decipher the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. The 
framework fails to provide market access or increase market share for 
U.S. producers.

    If confirmed, will you prioritize and include market access 
commitments in your work as Chief Ag Negotiator?

    Answer. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I am 
committed to opening markets and increasing market access for U.S. 
agricultural products around the world and remaining in close 
consultation with members of Congress during my tenure. In particular, 
I will seek to utilize the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) 
negotiations to seek high-standard commitments from IPEF partners and 
knock down barriers to secure tangible benefits for U.S. farmers, 
ranchers, and producers.
                       agriculture and inflation
    Question. Wyoming's agriculture producers are struggling with a 
number of challenges: skyrocketing inflation, unaffordable energy/fuel 
prices, labor shortages, broken supply chains, fertilizer shortages, 
prolonged drought, and recession.

    Despite these challenges, Wyoming's hardworking farmers are 
ranchers continue fighting to put food on our tables--but many are 
wondering just how much longer they can hang on. You noted in your 
testimony how critical it is to ensure U.S. producers have affordable 
access to input materials they need to operate.

    What happens to our agriculture producers if input prices continue 
to rise--if we don't get the price of energy (gas/diesel) down?

    And what impact will a prolonged recession have on American 
agriculture, both at home and in the global marketplace?

    Answer. The supply chain disruptions that have led to the 
significant rise in input and commodity prices demonstrate the need for 
long-term investment to rebuild a resilient, secure, and sustainable 
economy. I understand the importance of keeping input costs low so our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers can compete globally. If confirmed, I see 
my role as ensuring farmers and ranchers have a strong voice within the 
administration that is advocating to reduce the input costs that hurt 
their bottom line.
                                 sugar
    Question. The current world sugar market has incredible challenges, 
including trade distorting practices. It is more important than ever 
that the United States maintain sugar policies that stabilize the 
economic environment U.S. producers of sugar.

    If confirmed, will you work with your counterparts at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to prevent excessive importations of foreign 
sugar and unnecessary foreign access to domestic sugar markets?

    Can you describe, in detail, the decision-making process across 
USTR and the U.S. Department of Agriculture respect to sugar 
importation decisions?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture to support and defend the U.S. sugar program, including 
with respect to sugar imports, as prescribed in U.S. farm bills enacted 
by the U.S. Congress.

    For U.S. sugar imports through WTO tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), USDA 
has the authority to set TRQ quantities, in accordance with U.S. Farm 
Bills, while USTR has the authority to determine country-specific 
allocations for the TRQs. For sugar imports through TRQs established 
under U.S. preferential trade agreements, U.S. sugar imports are 
permitted to enter in quantities determined according to the terms 
specified in the individual agreements, as implemented in U.S. law. 
USTR annually announces its determinations regarding the quantities 
permitted under the preferential trade agreement sugar TRQs in a 
Federal Register notice.
                   science-based standards for trade
    Question. U.S. cattle are raised on family-owned farms, ranches, 
and feedlots--not factories. In fact, 91 percent of operations are 
family-owned and 80 percent of feed yards are family-operated. The U.S. 
cattle industry prioritizes animal health and welfare through industry-
wide participation in the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. Over 85 
percent of the cattle produced in the United States are produced by 
BQA-certified producers at each segment of production (cow-calf, 
stocker, feedlots, transportation). BQA prioritizes low-stress animal 
handling techniques, proper care for livestock, and improvements in 
biosecurity plans, among other things.

    The United States has some of the highest animal health and food 
safety standards in the world. The World Organization for Animal Health 
designated the United States as ``negligible risk'' for bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Antimicrobials are only used to treat 
sick cattle, and are done so in compliance with U.S. Government 
standards. Likewise, commonly used technologies such as hormones and 
beta agonists are FDA-approved technologies that are carefully applied 
with scientific precision and with the best interest of livestock and 
the consumer in mind.

    Some countries use non-science based restrictions on production 
methods and technologies as protectionist measures to restrict U.S. 
beef access.

    If confirmed will you work with the USDA to continue to advocate 
for science-based standards in trade, especially in our trade 
agreements and in international forums like Codex Alimentarius and the 
World Organization for Animal Health where the European Union, China, 
and Russia continue to undermine science-based standards?

    Answer. Farmers and ranchers in the United States and around the 
world rely on access to safe tools and technologies to feed a growing 
global population. If confirmed, I will enforce the SPS provisions of 
our trade agreements and work with USDA and other Agencies to promote 
the development of international SPS standards that are science- and 
risk-based. I will also encourage our trading partners to adopt 
science- and risk-based SPS measures.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Sherrod Brown
    Question. Agriculture supports over 1.5 million jobs and nearly $75 
million in wages in Ohio. In 2021, Ohio exported more than $4.5 billion 
in agricultural products, led by our top commodities: soybeans and 
corn.

    A quarter of U.S. agricultural exports go to China, a country that 
imposes regulations with no transparency, cheats our trade laws, fails 
time and again to honor its trade commitments, and continues to 
weaponize agricultural imports in response to our domestic trade 
enforcement policy.

    Our farmers deserve better than to be used as a geopolitical 
football, left to the whim of the Chinese Communist Party's import 
controls. We must diversify our trading partners for agricultural 
products and ensure those markets can offer reliability and 
sustainability.

    As USTR engages with new agricultural trading partners in Asia, 
Europe, and Africa, how would you incorporate the agricultural 
provisions of strong trade agreements like USMCA into those 
negotiations to stand up for Ohio farmers?

    Answer. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I intend to 
stand up for U.S. agriculture, including for Ohio framers. I will seek 
high-standard commitments on agriculture in the Indo-Pacific Economic 
Framework (IPEF), and in other trade negotiations with trading partners 
in other regions, in order to increase market access by eliminating 
barriers to U.S. agricultural exports.

    Question. Ohio is fifth in the Nation in the number of certified 
organic operations and our farmers can beat any overseas producer in a 
fair competition--but unfortunately organic certifiers in other 
countries don't always hold their products to the same standards as the 
U.S.

    USTR can help by improving the enforceability of our trade 
agreements. Some have proposed better information sharing between 
trading partners about other countries' dishonest organic certification 
practices.

    Could you comment on this idea or other ways that our trade 
agreements could be improved to enable the effective enforcement of 
equivalent organic standards?

    Answer. I share your concerns regarding the impact of fraudulent 
imported organic products on the U.S. organics industry. If confirmed, 
I will work with USDA to explore ways to further improve organic 
equivalence agreements that hold imported organic products to 
equivalent high standards found in the United States, and use all other 
available tools under other trade agreements to further support our 
high-quality organic exports.

    Question. This committee has held several hearings that touched on 
the Indo-
Pacific Economic Framework. As I've said before, we want a worker-
centered trade approach that creates good jobs, that raises wages, that 
rebuilds our industrial base, that protects workers' health and safety, 
and our planet, and that improves labor rights worldwide.

    We want to make sure our agricultural products are not held hostage 
as leverage when we try to hold countries accountable and enforce our 
trade laws. Could you discuss the role you'd have as USTR's Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator in ensuring this framework benefits Ohio 
farmers?

    Answer. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I am 
committed to advancing the Biden administration's worker-centered trade 
policy and working in close consultation with Congress to pursue an 
Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) that benefits American 
agricultural producers. Agriculture will be an integral component of 
IPEF's trade pillar, and developed in a way that creates economically 
meaningful, equitable, and durable market access for American producers 
across the United States, including those in Ohio.

    Question. The growing agricultural bioeconomy is adding more 
sustainable jobs in rural communities and enabling the production of 
new crop-based chemicals and materials. Ohio is a leader in this 
emerging area, but U.S. competitiveness lags behind competitors in 
Europe and Asia.

    As USTR's Chief Agricultural Negotiator, how would you improve U.S. 
farmers' competitiveness in the global bioeconomy?

    Answer. I am committed to working together with our trading 
partners and international allies to uphold science- and risk-based, 
transparent, and predictable policies that support commercialization 
and trade of innovative biotechnology products that enable sustainable 
agriculture; provide new tools to farmers to address drought, diseases, 
and pests; reduce food loss and waste; and supply consumers with 
healthier and more sustainable products. If confirmed, I intend to 
engage with U.S. trading partners to ensure that they fulfill their 
international trade obligations and address issues that affect the 
commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines
    Question. If confirmed, how will you prioritize increasing market 
access for U.S. farmers and ranchers and are there particular markets 
you view as key prospects for new trade agreements?

    Answer. If confirmed, I would be front and center advocating for 
maintaining strong, rules-based and open markets, addressing any 
barriers to agricultural exports through the enforcement of existing 
agreements, and holding trading partners accountable to their 
international commitments. I would also advocate for the use of all the 
tools in our toolbox to ensure that U.S. agricultural stakeholders can 
access markets around the world. I also believe IPEF presents a great 
opportunity to expand exports for farmers and ranchers into the Indo-
Pacific region.

    Question. As you know, since the onset of Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine, there has been substantial volatility in both commodity and 
input prices which has increased uncertainty in the markets as well as 
brought about a humanitarian crisis.

    If confirmed, how would you work to help mitigate the impact of 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, whether it be input costs, commodity 
prices, or Putin's efforts to leverage food insecurity in certain 
regions against the West?

    Answer. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has led to immense volatility 
for commodities and inputs, which has put a strain on farmers. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working across the Federal Government to 
ensure farmers' input costs and global commodity swings are top 
priorities for the administration. I would also utilize my role to 
foster working relationships with my counterparts to establish 
mechanisms to help alleviate food security challenges that may happen 
in the future.
                          india market access
    Question. India will play a large role in the Indo-Pacific for 
years to come, which presents an enormous opportunity for growth for 
U.S. farmers, especially Montana's pulse crop farmers.

    How should the U.S. approach India and its many challenging and 
longstanding market access issues, whether on a bilateral or 
multilateral basis?

    Answer. In November 2021, Ambassador Tai and Indian Trade Minister 
Goyal relaunched the United States-India Trade Policy Forum, with a 
view to advancing the goal, announced by both presidents to ``develop 
an ambitious, shared vision for the future of the trade relationship.'' 
The Ministers underlined the significance of the TPF in forging robust 
bilateral trade ties and enhancing the bilateral economic relationship 
to benefit working people in both countries. They agreed that 
reconvening the TPF and regular engagement under the forum would help 
in addressing outstanding bilateral trade concerns and allow the two 
countries to explore important, emerging trade policy issues. If 
confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I intend to engage with 
India bilaterally and through the WTO to improve agricultural market 
access for U.S. pulses and other products, including through the 
reduction of applied tariffs.
                            china phase one
    Question. It is clear that China is not meeting its purchase or 
regulatory reform commitments under the Phase One deal. How will you 
work to hold China accountable for its obligations under Phase One?

    Answer. I recognize that China fell short of meeting its Phase One 
purchase commitments, and I believe that all options should be on the 
table for addressing those shortfalls. If confirmed as Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator, I intend to engage with China, as well as work 
with other trading partners, to ensure that the terms of competition 
are fair with respect to agricultural trade. I also intend to work to 
expand and diversify the opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers 
to export their goods to reliable trading partners worldwide.

    Question. Given that multiple other trade agreements in the Asia-
Pacific are advancing and being implemented without the U.S. at the 
table in the region, what will be the impact on U.S. exports if the 
U.S. does not pursue new, high standard agreements that include market 
access provisions?

    Answer. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I intend to 
utilize the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) to create 
economically meaningful, equitable, and durable market access for U.S. 
farmers and ranchers. I commit to encouraging our IPEF trading partners 
to implement science-based measures to minimize and eliminate non-
tariff barriers that prevent American producers from accessing markets 
in the Indo-Pacific region.

    Question. As you have spent time in your career both within USDA as 
well as the White House, how will you work to ensure that U.S. 
agriculture has a prominent place at the table and coordinate efforts 
between USTR, USDA, and other agencies?

    Answer. In my Federal career spanning nearly 3 decades, I have 
served in a wide range of capacities at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, which has provided me the opportunity to work with USTR 
and other government agencies on trade and agricultural issues. If 
confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that USTR and USDA maintain a 
close partnership and close collaboration with other government 
agencies, to benefit U.S. agricultural producers.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. Agriculture is one of the few areas where we have a trade 
surplus--we export more than we import. Maintaining and expanding 
market access to countries throughout the world is key to sustaining 
our success as the world's leading agricultural producer. Many 
countries have extensive tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods to protect 
their domestic industries. All of these problems could be resolved in 
the context of FTA negotiations.

    How can we expect to lower tariffs from these countries without the 
``carrot'' of market access to the United States?

    Answer. At this time, the administration is seeking to expand 
market access in ways other than tariff reductions. If confirmed, I 
will do everything I can to secure a mix of high-standard commitments 
and principles under the IPEF trade pillar that sets clear and strong 
regional rules and standards that promote our competitiveness and 
prosperity.

    Question. Other countries have non-tariff barriers for our 
agricultural commodities such as health and environmental regulations 
that prevent U.S. products from entering their markets. The EU, for 
example, blocks imports of antibiotic meat. Mexico now prohibits 
genetically modified crops. The UK does not allow any imports of 
chlorinated chicken. Taiwan is trending the right direction and 
recently lifted its ban on U.S. pork imports back in December 2021.

    What are the top countries on your radar for reducing non-tariff 
barriers like these health regulations?

    How do you expect to extract concessions from these countries on 
health regulations without the ``carrot'' of tariff-free market access 
to the United States?

    Answer. Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) are a major impediment to market 
access for U.S. agricultural products in a number of countries, 
including the EU, Mexico, and China, among others. If confirmed, I will 
seek to address priority NTBs using a variety of trade policy tools, 
including through enforcement of existing trade agreements, bilateral 
negotiations, and in relevant committees in the World Trade 
Organization, among other forums.

    Question. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) was recently 
rolled out by the Biden administration, and it is woefully insufficient 
to seize the economic opportunities that are available to us in Asia. 
The four pillars of the IPEF are labor standards, digital rules, anti-
corruption, and climate--no market access, no agriculture.

    Even though agriculture is not one of the four pillars of the IPEF, 
do you intend to pursue a comprehensive agreement on food standards and 
market access for agricultural goods with IPEF partners? If not, why 
not?

    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to seek provisions within the trade 
pillar of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) to produce 
tangible benefits for U.S. agriculture. This would include the pursuit 
of high-standard commitments from IPEF members to advance the 
implementation of science-based policies and improve transparency in 
the development of import rules and regulations, to reduce longstanding 
impediments to safe, wholesome U.S. agricultural products, and thereby 
increase market access in the Indo-Pacific for U.S. farmers, ranchers, 
and producers.

    Question. Taiwan was not included in the IPEF, which I believe was 
a mistake. Taiwan is our 11th largest trading partner, and they 
recently lifted the ban on U.S. pork imports back in December. They are 
eager to trade with us, and we should be eager to trade with them. What 
are your thoughts on a sectoral agreement with Taiwan that specifically 
addresses agricultural trade?

    Answer. On June 1, 2022, the United States and Taiwan launched the 
U.S.-
Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade. Under the auspices of the 
American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Representative Office in the United States, USTR will work with Taiwan 
to develop an ambitious roadmap for negotiations for reaching 
agreements with high-standard commitments and economically meaningful 
outcomes. If confirmed, I would work to secure provisions to facilitate 
agricultural trade through science- and risk-based decision making, and 
the adoption of sound, transparent regulatory practices.

    Question. COVID has shined a light on how China's sanitary measures 
for agricultural goods are far behind those of American producers. 
China's human rights abuses and forced labor practices in the 
agricultural sector have also come to light in recent years. Since 
2020, CBP has issued various Withhold Release Orders (WRO's) blocking 
the import of cotton and tomatoes that are produced with Uyghur forced 
labor in Xinjiang.

    What are your plans to encourage and work with allies to adopt the 
same posture, block these imports, and cut off this revenue stream for 
the CCP?

    Answer. I am committed to working with allies and partners to 
address human rights abuses and forced labor practices in global 
agricultural production and downstream industries such as textile 
manufacturing. If confirmed, I will prioritize sharing agricultural 
trade expertise with CBP and other interagency partners to counter 
these appalling practices and ensure that markets remain open for U.S. 
and international producers that have worked hard for decades to rid 
their supply chains of human rights abuses.
                           morocco fertilizer
    Question. Fertilizer prices have risen 220 percent from this time a 
year ago. Those costs are being passed on to the consumer and making 
food prices more expensive. Morocco is a leading producer of phosphate 
fertilizer that is currently subject to a 20-percent tariff. Morocco is 
our oldest ally, a key security partner in Africa, and a member of the 
Abraham Accords.

    In general, what are your priorities for lifting tariffs on goods 
like fertilizer that farmers and ranchers rely on?

    What are your thoughts on reducing tariff barriers on fertilizer 
imports, particularly from Morocco?

    Broadly speaking, what trade opportunities do you see with respect 
to the Abraham Accords? Do you intend to pursue multilateral 
discussions with the Abraham Accords countries to discuss agricultural 
trade and opportunities for our collective benefit?

    Answer. If confirmed, I would advocate that the United States 
maintain resilient, secure, and sustainable sources of fertilizer that 
do no harm to any U.S. stakeholder. I would also work closely across 
the Federal Government, including with USDA, which recently announced 
$500 million to support independent, innovative and sustainable 
American fertilizer production to supply American farmers.

    The United States has FTA agreements with Israel, Bahrain, Morocco, 
(and Jordan). While the United Arab Emirates is not an FTA partner, the 
United States has a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) set 
up with the Gulf Cooperation Council which includes the United Arab 
Emirates. As such, if confirmed I intend to work with my counterparts 
to pursue opportunities to further strengthen our agricultural trade 
relationships across this region.

    Question. Trade and natural resources policy are inextricably 
linked. Rising fuel prices make it more expensive to operate equipment 
or move goods via freight. These costs are being passed on to the 
customer and compounding the inflationary pressures that have led to 
rising costs for groceries.

    How will you be a voice within this administration for a sane 
energy policy that unleashes production and provides relief to 
agricultural producers?

    Answer. I understand the impact high fuel prices have, not only on 
U.S. agricultural producers but on every American family. If confirmed 
as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I would advocate for the continued 
use of U.S. ethanol as one part of any energy solution, to support U.S. 
farmers, create jobs, and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

    Question. Producers in my State have had a hard time with the 
supply chain challenges plaguing our economy. Semiconductors, tires, 
farm equipment, and shipping materials have all been delayed due to 
port bottlenecks.

    What are your priorities for easing the supply chain burden for the 
specific needs of the agricultural sector?

    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to focus on increasing the 
sustainability and resiliency of our supply chains to help mitigate 
increasing fuel and other farm input costs. To enhance supply chain 
resilience, I will focus on diversifying our trading partners to build 
more durable trade flows. Additionally, I will work through regional 
trade initiatives to support more sustainable supply chains.

    Question. Farmers and ranchers need a reliable, skilled workforce. 
Labor shortages continue to pose a challenge to keeping our 
agricultural sector fully productive.

    How do you intend to coordinate within the interagency to ensure 
producers have the manpower they need?

    Will you advocate against policies that discourage work and limit 
labor participation?

    Answer. I understand the importance of reliable and skilled 
workforce for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. If confirmed, I intend 
to coordinate with my interagency counterparts to find ways to ensure 
that there is a reliable agricultural workforce in place.

                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper
                            soy and poultry
    Question. One of the biggest issues facing the agriculture industry 
is expanding market access for U.S. products, which is top of mind for 
many of my constituents in Delaware. Soybeans and chicken are two of 
many products that are critical to Delaware's agricultural economy--and 
these two industries create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars 
in economic activity. Soybeans are one of the highest produced crops in 
Delaware, and this product is essential in meeting future food needs 
for both people and livestock across the globe. And the poultry 
industry in Delaware also punches above its weight. In fact, in my 
State there are nearly 300 chickens per person. With nearly 1 of every 
5 pounds of American chicken being exported, the U.S. needs a robust 
international market to sustain the economic health and well-being of 
the U.S. poultry industry. Unfortunately, during the previous 
administration, our international trade policy was characterized by 
chaos and uncertainty--the opposite of what we need for investment in 
our U.S. producers and farmers.

    Can you discuss the export opportunities you will prioritize in 
your role for soy and poultry products?

    Answer. I share your concerns about opening markets for U.S. 
agricultural exports including U.S. poultry and soy. If confirmed as 
Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I will work to create agricultural 
relationships with trading partners that benefit U.S. poultry and soy 
producers and resolve barriers to trade around the world.

    Question. It is clear that while we need to expand international 
market access for U.S. agricultural products, we also have the 
opportunity to use trade agreements to prioritize environmentally 
sustainable practices that nourish our people and our planet. While 
tools like regenerative agriculture are an important part of the 
solution, we must also advocate for our trading partners to adopt more 
sustainable agriculture practices. As the chairman of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, I will continue to advocate for land 
conservation policies that support both our farmers and our planet.

    What opportunities exist to improve sustainability in our 
agriculture trade policies in order to make progress on global climate 
goals?

    Answer. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I will work 
to promote agricultural innovation and biotechnology, which are key 
tools in making progress on global climate goals and ensuring that the 
agriculture sector is part of the solution to climate and environmental 
challenges. I am committed to working together with our trading 
partners and international allies to uphold science-based, transparent, 
and predictable policies that support commercialization and trade of 
innovative biotechnology products that enable sustainable agriculture, 
provide new tools to farmers to address drought, diseases, and pests, 
reduce food loss and waste, and supply consumers with healthier and 
more sustainable products.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. At the end of 2020, Mexico adopted a decree that 
progressively bans the use, distribution, and importation of glyphosate 
by 2024. The decree does not consider regulatory reviews from around 
the world. The Mexican Government has also referenced another 80 
agriculture chemicals that could be targeted in a similar vein.

    Relatedly, Mexico's regulatory agency responsible for pesticide 
registrations, has virtually ceased processing applications for new or 
existing products farmers greatly need--effectively removing them from 
the market.

    If confirmed, will you consider opening discussions with the 
Mexican Government to address processing delays?

    Answer. If confirmed, I would prioritize Mexico returning to a 
science- and risk-based regulatory approval processes, to help ensure 
that U.S. farmers have access to modern tools and technologies 
necessary to meet their sustainable production goals and to increase 
crop yield and farm incomes. I would carefully consider strategies to 
address these challenges, including looking at all the tools under the 
USMCA.

    Question. As the conflict in Ukraine continues, we're seeing 
growing threats of global food insecurity and huge spikes in grain 
prices. Unfortunately, these challenges are only inflamed by various 
trade restrictions and export bans from countries around the world.

    If confirmed, and given your current work with Secretary Vilsack, 
how will coordinate with our allies and trading partners to ease or 
remove food export bans?

    Answer. The United States is in a position of strength as a major 
agricultural producer to address the current challenges facing global 
food security. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, I would 
be front and center advocating for maintaining strong, rules-based and 
open markets that provide consumers and producers the needed 
predictability at these uncertain times.

    Question. Recently, it's been reported that the U.S. and Japan have 
replaced China as the largest importers of Taiwanese agricultural 
products. Furthermore, according to the USDA's Foreign Agricultural 
Service, Taiwan was the sixth largest foreign market for U.S. 
agriculture commodities last year.

    If confirmed, how do you plan to work cooperatively with Taiwan to 
prioritize U.S. agricultural products given the new U.S.-Taiwan 
Initiative on 21st-Century Trade?

    Answer. On June 1, 2022, USTR announced the launch of the U.S.-
Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade under the auspices of the 
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Representative Office in the United States (TECRO). I understand that, 
currently, the U.S. side is working with the Taiwan side to develop an 
ambitious roadmap for negotiations for reaching agreements with high-
standard commitments and economically meaningful outcomes, including in 
the area of agriculture. If confirmed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, 
I would work to secure provisions to facilitate agricultural trade 
through science- and risk-based decision-making and the adoption of 
sound, transparent regulatory practices.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Oregon
    The committee meets this morning to discuss the nomination of Mr. 
Doug McKalip to serve as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator within the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative.

    Mr. McKalip brings nearly 30 years of Federal public service to his 
nomination, including in a variety of roles focused on ag policy and 
the well-being of rural communities in America. He's currently a top 
advisor to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack on trade, ag safety, national 
security, and a host of other issues. He's served in several other 
leadership positions at the Department of Agriculture and with the 
Domestic Policy Council. He's got a lot of fans on both sides of this 
committee, and his nomination comes at an absolutely critical time.

    Across America, families are paying more for groceries but getting 
less. Farmers and ranchers are being oppressed by drought and hammered 
by increased costs.

    Across the world, people are desperate at the prospect of 
widespread hunger as crops fail and basic food items are in short 
supply. War and climate change, compounded by shortsighted trade 
policies and supply chain disruptions, have created fears about a 21st-
century hunger catastrophe.

    The Finance Committee has authority over one important solution to 
this crisis: a smart trade policy that promotes affordable, abundant 
food here at home and abroad. This policy must support our farmers and 
ranchers and allow for maximum production by busting through trade 
barriers and lowering costs for key inputs, like fertilizer. It must 
also focus on opening and expanding export markets to ensure our 
farmers can continue to do what they do best: keeping the world fed.

    USTR's Ag Negotiator is the key position that will insist on the 
elimination of foreign regulations that hamper food distribution 
wherever it takes place, because that is what is needed to reduce 
hunger.

    The USTR Ag Negotiator also has much broader responsibilities for 
ensuring American interests in trade agreements are met. To that point, 
the Trump administration rushed the new USMCA into effect, and Canada 
and Mexico are failing to live up to key commitments. Canada is 
propping up barriers to our dairy products. Mexico is unfairly blocking 
American-grown corn and soybeans.

    It's a similar story with China. The Trump administration grabbed a 
whole lot of headlines with a flashy new trade deal, but it failed to 
set up real enforcement and let many of the Chinese Government's key 
trade rip-offs go unaddressed. China has failed to meet its commitments 
to import American ag products, only buying 58 percent of the total 
goods and services it agreed to buy in 2021. That's less than it was 
buying before the Trump trade war began.

    U.S. farmers are telling us they do not want handouts; they want 
real opportunities to sell their products around the world, which can 
only happen if there is a level playing field.

    To that end, the committee is also interested in discussing how our 
farmers and ranchers can benefit from the new Indo-Pacific Economic 
Framework. If confirmed, Mr. McKalip will play a key role in these 
issues, and more.

    I want to thank Mr. McKalip for joining us and for his willingness 
to continue his career in public service fighting on behalf of our 
farmers and ranchers.

                                 ______
                                 

                             Communication

                              ----------                              


                 Association of Equipment Manufacturers

                   1300 I Street, NW, Suite 520 West

                       Washington, DC 20005-3314

                            T: 202-898-9064

                        Toll Free: 866-236-0442

                          https://www.aem.org/

July 28, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

On behalf of the U.S. equipment manufacturing industry and the 
companies that make up the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, we 
respectfully urge the confirmation of Doug McKalip as Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Equipment manufacturers are proud to support 2.8 million family-
sustaining jobs--one in eight manufacturing jobs in the United States--
that contribute $288 billion to the nation's GDP and play a critical 
role in production agriculture and the strength of rural America.

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers has worked closely with Mr. 
McKalip during his tenure at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
advance trade policies that boost foreign demand and prices for U.S. 
agriculture commodities. Mr. McKalip has always displayed an unwavering 
commitment to opening new markets and lowering tariffs on American 
products so that farmers, manufacturers, and workers can continue to 
grow and succeed. He has also displayed a keen appreciation for the 
fact that the equipment manufacturing industry is not only deeply 
connected to rural America, but a big part of it.

We are confident that his knowledge of foreign markets and the 
important role they play for the economic health of American producers 
and equipment manufacturers will be a tremendous asset to Office of the 
United States Trade Representative. Mr. McKalip is an excellent choice, 
and equipment manufacturers look forward to working with him in his new 
role. Please feel free to call on us to expand upon our support for the 
nomination of Doug McKalip. Thank you for your consideration of our 
views.

Sincerely,

Megan Tanel
President

                                [all]