[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]