[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



             STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON AGRICULTURAL TRADE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, FOREIGN AGRICULTURE, AND HORTICULTURE

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                              MAY 11, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-10





                 [GRAPHIC) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               



           Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov







                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-089 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023







                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina, 
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

    Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture

                   BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota, Chairman

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut,  
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          Ranking Minority Member
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio                  ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
                                     YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado

                                  (ii)









                             C O N T E N T S

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Finstad, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from 
  Connecticut,...................................................     3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................     4

                               Witnesses

Griffith, John, Executive Vice President, Ag Business and CHS 
  Hedging, CHS Inc.; Chairman, North American Export Grain 
  Association, Inver Grove Heights, MN...........................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Supplementary material.......................................    51
Stevermer, Lori, President-Elect, National Pork Producers 
  Council; Customer Success Manager, Alltech U.S. Pork Business, 
  Easton, MN.....................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Submitted question...........................................    53
Lantz, Matt, Vice President, Global Access, Bryant Christie Inc., 
  Seattle, WA; on behalf of International Fresh Produce 
  Association; National Potato Council...........................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Doud, Hon. Gregory, former Ambassador; Vice President of Global 
  Situational Awareness & Chief Economist, Aimpoint Research, a 
  division of Directions Research, Inc., Columbus, OH............    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Supplementary material.......................................    51








 
             STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON AGRICULTURAL TRADE

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and 
                                              Horticulture,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 11:08 
a.m., in Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. 
Brad Finstad [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Finstad, Austin Scott of 
Georgia, DesJarlais, Baird, Mann, Rose, Molinaro, De La Cruz, 
Langworthy, Van Orden, Miller of Ohio, Thompson (ex officio), 
Hayes, McGovern, Adams, Tokuda, Crockett, Jackson of Illinois, 
Casar, Brown, Salinas, and Caraveo.
    Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Justina Graff, Jennifer 
Tiller, Erin Wilson, John Konya, Daniel Feingold, Kate Fink, 
Amar Nair, Ashley Smith, and Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD FINSTAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                    CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. First and 
foremost, I want to welcome all of you here, and say thank you 
so much for being here today at this hearing, which is 
entitled, Stakeholder Perspectives on Agriculture Trade. After 
brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony from our 
witnesses, and then the hearing will be open to questions from 
Members. In consulting with the Ranking Member, and pursuant to 
Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware 
that other Members of the full Committee may join us today.
    So I want to start by saying good morning, and welcome to 
the first hearing of the House Committee on Agriculture, 
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and 
Horticulture in the 118th Congress. And to Ranking Member 
Hayes, welcome, and I look forward to working with you. And I 
look forward to working with you to pass a strong farm bill 
that is written by farmers, for farmers, and by rural 
communities, for rural communities. And, importantly, I want to 
thank all of you, our witnesses, for taking time to be here 
today, and to share your testimony with us.
    As a proud fourth generation farmer, raising the fifth, I 
understand how important a robust trade agenda and economy is 
to farm country, and ensuring viable markets for our producers 
to ship their commodities to. We know American farmers and 
ranchers efficiently produce the safest and most affordable 
fuel, food, and fiber in the world. The value proposition is 
well-known by our partners and consumers around the globe, who 
purchase more than 20 percent of U.S. agriculture production.
    Nevertheless, we are headed towards an agriculture trade 
deficit of $14.5 billion this year, and our overall trade 
deficit has reached a staggering $945 billion, the largest 
ever. And while our top trade competitors continue to negotiate 
free trade agreements, we hear Biden officials referring to 
these type of negotiations as 20th century tools. Our market 
share in key destinations, such as Europe and East Asia, have 
declined, yet the Biden Administration's sole focus is on 
frameworking and dialoguing. Given these unfortunate realities, 
it is imperative that the trade programs in Title III work 
efficiently and effectively and can be fully utilized by our 
producers.
    So as we continue to gather information from stakeholders 
ahead of the next farm bill, we need to have a clear picture of 
the trading economy our producers are engaged with day in and 
day out. Today I look forward to hearing more about that from 
our expert witnesses, as well as how they utilize the trade 
programs provided by the farm bill, and other thoughts they may 
have for carving a productive pathway forward. While the 
stagnancy of the current Administration's trade agenda is 
frustrating, I would be remiss if I didn't mention my 
appreciation for the work of our ag trade officials, and what 
they are doing at USDA and USTR. I welcomed the chance to visit 
with both Under Secretary Taylor and Ambassador McKalip 
recently, and I look forward to continued partnership and 
engaging with them.
    Before I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, a 
quick note on this Subcommittee's activities. There has been 
some public fodder on the types of topics we should address and 
when we should address them, namely in the nutrition space. I 
want to say, rest assured, we will be discussing those issues, 
starting at the full Committee level during our first work 
period in June.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Finstad follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Brad Finstad, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota
    Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the House 
Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign 
Agriculture, and Horticulture in the 118th Congress. To Ranking Member 
Hayes, welcome, and I look forward to working together to pass a strong 
farm bill that is written by farmers for farmers, and by rural 
communities for rural communities.
    And importantly, thank you to our witnesses for taking time out of 
their schedules to be here today.
    As a proud fourth-generation farmer, raising the fifth, I 
understand how important a robust trade agenda and economy is to farm 
country and ensuring viable markets for our producers to ship their 
commodities to.
    We know American farmers and ranchers efficiently produce the 
safest and most affordable fuel, food, and fiber in the world. The 
value proposition is well-known by our partners and consumers around 
the globe, who purchase more than 20 percent of U.S. agricultural 
production.
    Nevertheless, we are headed towards an agricultural trade deficit 
of $14.5 billion this year, and our overall trade deficit has reached a 
staggering $945 billion--the largest ever.
    And while our top trade competitors continue to negotiate free 
trade agreements, we hear Biden officials referring to these types of 
negotiations as ``20th century tools.'' Our market shares in key 
destinations--such as Europe and East Asia--have declined, yet the 
Biden Administration's sole focus is on ``frameworking'' and 
``dialoguing.''
    Given these unfortunate realities, it's imperative the trade 
programs in Title III work efficiently and can be fully utilized by our 
producers.
    So as we continue to gather information from stakeholders ahead of 
the next farm bill, we need to have a clear picture of the trading 
economy our producers are engaged with--day in and day out.
    Today, I look forward to hearing more about that from our expert 
witnesses as well as how they utilize the trade programs provided by 
the farm bill and other thoughts they have for carving a productive 
pathway forward.
    While the stagnancy of the current Administration's trade agenda is 
frustrating, I would be remiss if I didn't mention my appreciation for 
the work our agriculture trade officials are doing at USDA and USTR. I 
welcomed the chance to visit with both Under Secretary Taylor and 
Ambassador McKalip recently, and I look forward to continued 
partnership and engagement with them.
    Before I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, a quick note 
on this Subcommittee's activities. There has been some public fodder on 
the types of topics we should address, namely in the nutrition space. 
Rest assured, we will be discussing those issues, starting at the full 
Committee level, during the first work period in June.
    With that, I recognize the Ranking Member from Connecticut, Jahana 
Hayes. I look forward to a fruitful collaboration throughout the 118th 
Congress.

    The Chairman. And now I would like to recognize the Ranking 
Member from Connecticut, Jahana Hayes. I look forward to a 
fruitful collaboration through the 118th Congress, and I would 
like to welcome you, please provide us with your opening 
remarks.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAHANA HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM CONNECTICUT

    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses today for testifying about the importance of 
agricultural trade, and how we can improve upon the Title III 
trade programs. You all have a vital role in our food systems, 
and I appreciate your testimony. This Congress we have an 
enormous responsibility of reauthorizing the farm bill, a farm 
bill that will support our farmers, and keep families fed. The 
public fodder comes from me, because I am deeply concerned 
about nutrition, and have not seen any movement on this 
Committee in the 118th Congress. I am committed to ensuring 
that no child, no senior, no veteran, no person in this country 
goes hungry.
    Two weeks ago House Republicans passed a bill putting 
nearly one million Americans at risk of losing SNAP benefits: 
34 million Americans struggle with food insecurity, nine 
million of which are children. With cuts to SNAP at the 
forefront of every budget discussion, it is incomprehensible 
how this Committee has not held any public hearings, at the 
full Committee or the Subcommittee, to discuss this topic in 
the 118th Congress. We have an obligation to the American 
people to let them know where we stand on this issue and have 
discussions in an open forum.
    Nutrition programs account for 76 percent of the $1.4 
trillion farm bill. Programs like The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, and 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program also deserve our attention. 
The farm bill includes nutrition, so we must pass a bill that 
meets the needs of all people in all communities. The Members 
of this Subcommittee must have a chance to review nutrition 
programs and work in a way that puts food on the tables of 
American people.
    Today, however, we are here to receive testimony from 
stakeholders on Title III agricultural trade programs. The 
United States is one of the top agricultural exporters, 
trailing only the European Union. However, farmers and 
producers are navigating a new landscape. Natural disasters, 
climate change, and shipping costs impact the agricultural 
market. I am also concerned with the protective measures used 
by our international trade partners, from arbitrary 
restrictions on U.S. products to import duties, tariffs on 
specific products. I am happy to see the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representatives are responding 
to these problems. I am also committed to addressing these 
barriers, and protecting the agricultural markets for producers 
in this country.
    Title III of the farm bill contains several important trade 
programs. The Market Access Program helps trade associations 
and small businesses build export marks through marketing and 
promotions. The Foreign Market Development Program creates, 
expands, and maintains foreign markets for generic U.S. 
products. These and other programs work cohesively to build, 
develop, and maintain foreign markets. An expanded market for 
food products brings stability to everyone in the food and 
agriculture sector, from farmers and producers, to truck 
drivers, to food retailers and grocers, and restaurant workers. 
The livelihoods of these workers are dependent on a robust 
agricultural market.
    According to the USDA, the agricultural food and related 
industries contribute roughly $1.2 trillion to U.S. gross 
domestic product, and $196 billion for agriculture exports. 
This activity also supports about 71,000 jobs and $4.5 billion 
in wages to my district. We have before us an impressive and 
very qualified group of witnesses, and I am excited to hear 
testimony on both the Title III trade programs and the overall 
state of agricultural trade, and I look forward to working with 
the Chairman of this Committee to make sure that the nutrition 
space gets the attention that it deserves in the upcoming farm 
bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Hayes. The chair 
would request that other Members submit their opening 
statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their 
testimony, and to assure that there is ample time for 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for sharing their time 
and expertise.
    Agriculture is the backbone to most of the world's economies, and 
heavily relies on international trade, which helps farmers back home 
and abroad increase their revenue, expand their business opportunities, 
and most importantly, feed, clothe, and fuel the world. Trade is also a 
vital lifeline for rural America. Increased export opportunities often 
lead to job creation, wage growth, and improved communities.
    Many of you have heard me talk incessantly about how important 
science, technology, and innovation are to agriculture. Trade 
competition can act as a catalyst for innovation in production 
techniques, not to mention a host of other areas, contributing to the 
resilience of U.S. agriculture.
    But I remain concerned that without a robust and forward-thinking 
trade agenda, our producers--large and small--risk being excluded from 
markets, furthering global food insecurity and volatility. Not to 
mention the devastating impact on our local economies.
    The United States has long been the world's leading agricultural 
producer and exporter, and we must have individuals at the helm shaping 
international trade standards, policies, and fighting for market 
access. Robust and fair trade agreements are not outdated tools, rather 
they can protect our agricultural interests, ensure a level playing 
field, and prevent unfair competition from subsidized or low-standard 
imports.
    And we must strike while the iron is hot. For example, expanding 
trading relationships with new and emerging markets across Africa and 
Southeast Asia can offer substantial opportunities for the U.S. to 
establish its products in growing economies.
    I think the testimony today will provide valuable insight into this 
and more, and I again thank the witnesses for sharing their 
perspectives and suggestions.
    With that, I yield back.

    The Chairman. So, at this time, I would like to introduce 
our testifiers here.
    Our first witness today is Mr. John Griffith, who is the 
Executive Vice President of Ag Business and Hedging at CHS, 
Inc. He also serves as the Chairman of the North American 
Export Grain Association.
    Our next witness is Ms. Lori Stevermer, who is the 
President-Elect of the National Pork Producers Council, but 
more importantly, a resident of southern Minnesota's First 
Congressional District, and someone that we are very, very, 
very proud of, and really respect her awesome leadership.
    Our third witness today is Mr. Matt Lantz, who is the Vice 
President for Global Access at Bryant Christie, Inc. And our 
fourth and final witness today is Ambassador Gregg Doud, who is 
the Vice President of Global Situational Awareness and Chief 
Economist for Aimpoint Research. Ambassador Doud previously 
served as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of 
the United States Trade Representative.
    So thank you all for joining us today, and we will now 
proceed with your testimony. You will each have 5 minutes. The 
timer in front of you will count down to zero, at which point 
your time has expired. And so we will start first--Mr. 
Griffith, please begin when you are ready.

          STATEMENT OF JOHN GRIFFITH, EXECUTIVE VICE 
  PRESIDENT, AG BUSINESS AND CHS HEDGING, CHS INC.; CHAIRMAN, 
                  NORTH AMERICAN EXPORT GRAIN 
              ASSOCIATION, INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN

    Mr. Griffith. Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify on the important topic of agricultural trade. My name 
is John Griffith. I am Executive Vice President of Agricultural 
Business and Hedging for CHS, Inc., a Minnesota-based U.S. 
farmer-owned cooperative, and global grains and energy company, 
owned by over 600,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide. I also 
serve as the Chairman of North American Export Grain 
Association, or NAEGA, for short. NAEGA is a nonprofit trade 
association, whose members export the majority of all U.S. 
grain and oilseeds to international markets. Today I would like 
to convey our hope that members will work together to pass the 
comprehensive farm bill to provide certainty to U.S. farmers, 
which in turn enables us to compete freely and fairly with our 
global trade partners. Let me briefly address three topics: 
market access programs, food aid, and supply chains.
    To say that trade is important to American agriculture is 
an understatement. Trade is the lifeblood of American 
agriculture, and global demand for food has never been greater. 
However, in the past few years, major events, such as COVID 
epidemic, and the war in Ukraine, have disrupted global supply 
chains, causing a profound impact on agriculture. While these 
crises present an opportunity for U.S. farmers, global 
competition requires United States leadership in fostering 
trade policies that allow farmers to fulfill changing global 
demand. We must promote global science-based policies and break 
down tariff and non-tariff barriers to entry. We appreciate the 
work done by Secretary Vilsack and Under Secretary Alexis 
Taylor in being a voice for these issues, yet more work remains 
in the pursuit of market access opportunities for U.S. farmers 
and ranchers.
    As you work with your Senate colleagues to reauthorize the 
farm bill, we urge you to recognize the need for additional 
funds for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market 
Development Program. These two programs have been enormously 
successful, expanding exports, and supporting hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. NAEGA is pleased to have been a participant 
in the Market Access Program since the 1990s. Combined with 
industry support, the program has enabled NAEGA to promote best 
practices and policies in agriculture trade.
    One success story from these programs involves Vietnam. 
Using program funds, the U.S. wheat industry engaged a 
potential new customer in Vietnam starting in 2019. Today that 
company purchases over $12 million worth of U.S. wheat and has 
reported that flour made from U.S. wheat is now, and I quote, 
``irreplaceable.'' With that said, these programs have remained 
stagnant in their funding level since 2002. A significant 
increase to MAP and FMD funding in the next farm bill will help 
U.S. agriculture protect our existing markets, while helping to 
grow and establish new export markets elsewhere.
    The feeding of hungry people through U.S. food aid programs 
has benefitted millions of people throughout the world. Food 
aid programs also represent a key component of the U.S. bulk 
grain exports. As exporters, we see the opportunity to 
strengthen U.S. food aid programs and reduce unintentional 
damage to commercial markets. As such, NAEGA supports policies 
that improve financial sustainability to maximize performance 
in the delivery of U.S. food aid. We also support policies that 
align food aid programming with national market development 
objectives and domestic agriculture support programs.
    A reliable infrastructure system is crucial to ship 
agriculture goods abroad. CHS recently announced a $105 million 
expansion to our facility in Myrtle Grove, Louisiana that will 
allow CHS to move over 300 million bushels of grain annually. 
CHS is committed to identifying new market opportunities, and 
investing in export infrastructure, but it is important that 
the U.S. Government partner in this effort through investment 
and the timely distribution of appropriated funds from 
legislation approved by Congress last year.
    In conclusion, agriculture is a global industry. The 
ability to export agriculture goods to hungry customers across 
the world is crucial to both the success of CHS as a company 
and the livelihoods of our farmer and rancher owners. However, 
we are seeing the global agriculture trade flow shift often 
away from the United States, and towards our competitors, as 
new trade alliances form. If the United States is to remain the 
global leader in feeding the world, we must enact trade 
policies and support programs that best allow American farmers 
and agribusinesses like CHS to do what we do best, grow and 
sell the safest, most abundant, and reliable food in the world.
    I humbly thank you for this opportunity, and would be happy 
to answer any of your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]

   Prepared Statement of John Griffith, Executive Vice President, Ag 
  Business and CHS Hedging, CHS Inc.; Chairman, North American Export 
                                 Grain 
                  Association, Inver Grove Heights, MN
Introduction
    Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and other Members of the 
Subcommittee; thank you for inviting me today to testify on the 
important topic of agriculture trade.
    My name is John Griffith, I am the Executive Vice President of 
Agriculture Business and Hedging, for CHS Inc., a Minnesota-based, U.S. 
farmer-owned cooperative, and global grains, energy, and food company 
owned by over 600,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide.
    I also serve as the Chairman of the North American Export Grain 
Association, or NAEGA, for short. NAEGA is a nonprofit trade 
association consisting of companies involved in the global 
international grain trading industry. NAEGA members are exporters of 
the majority of all U.S. grain and oilseeds to international markets. 
NAEGA acts throughout the world to promote policies, rules, and 
commercial practices that support international trade in grains, 
oilseeds, and their derived products.
    NAEGA also works directly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) as a cooperator organization that utilizes the Market Access 
Program (MAP), in a public-private partnership to promote exports of 
U.S. farm products.
    Today I would like to convey the importance, and our hope, that 
Members will work together to pass a comprehensive Farm bill to provide 
certainty to U.S. farmers, which in turn enables us to compete freely 
and fairly with our global trading partners. Let me briefly address 
four topics (1) Market Access Programs, (2) Food Aid, (3) Credit, (4) 
Supply Chains.
General Trade Outlook
    Before I move to these specific programs, to say that trade is 
important to American agriculture is an understatement--trade is the 
lifeblood of American agriculture, and global demand for food has never 
been greater. An expected 345.2 million people are projected to be 
food-insecure in 2023--more than double the number in 2020, according 
to the IMF. However, in the past few years we have experienced major 
geopolitical events, such as global supply chain disruptions from the 
COVID epidemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine, that have disrupted 
global supply flows and are having a profound impact on agriculture.
    These are not the kind of trade issues we have experienced in 
recent decades. As the war drags on, Ukraine's yields will likely be 
down 30% to 40% in 2023 with farmers having sown fewer crops. Fewer 
acres will be planted this year in Ukraine and as a result Ukraine's 
production will need to be made up elsewhere.
    The result is an opportunity for U.S. farmers to rise and respond 
to strong demand for agricultural products both within the U.S. and 
abroad, but the United States must play a leadership role in fostering 
policies that enable farmers and the grain trade to be able to fulfill 
that demand. U.S. agriculture is known by customers around the world 
for its unmatched quality and reliability. We must promote trade 
policies, both within the United States and abroad, that are science-
based, and break down tariff and non-tariff barriers to entry. We must 
do so in a manner that is the least market distorting to maintain U.S. 
agricultural leadership. We appreciate the work done by Secretary 
Vilsack and Undersecretary Alexis Taylor in being a voice for these 
issues both domestically and globally, through trade missions and 
venues like the G7 meeting in Japan last month, yet more work remains 
in the pursuit of market access opportunities for U.S. farmers and 
ranchers.
Market Access Programs
    As the House and Senate Agriculture Committees continue their work 
to reauthorize the farm bill this year, we urge Members to recognize 
the need for additional funds to the Market Access Program (MAP) and 
the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program. These two programs allow 
trade associations and nonprofit entities to apply for funding from 
USDA, with a private-sector match, to build new markets and promote 
U.S. agriculture around the world. The programs have been enormously 
successful, adding billions of dollars annually to the value of 
American agricultural exports and supporting hundreds of thousands of 
jobs.
    NAEGA is pleased to be a participant in the Market Access Program 
and has been since the 1990s. Key to NAEGA's participation is close 
coordination with USDA and cooperators like U.S. Grains Council, U.S. 
Wheat Associates and U.S. Soybean Export Council. Combined with 
industry support, the program has enabled NAEGA to promote best 
practices in agricultural trade, including the promotion of strong, 
science-based regulatory regimes that decrease trade barriers, in new 
and developing markets, and support international efforts to provide 
for food security.
    One success story from these programs I would like to share 
involves Vietnam--a valuable market for U.S. producers and one that we 
see as a major opportunity for growth. Using MAP and FMD funds, the 
U.S. wheat industry engaged a potential new customer in Vietnam 
starting in 2019. The experience was positive, and the customer started 
consistent monthly purchases of up to 2,500 MT (Metric Tons) of U.S. 
hard red winter wheat (HRW), and up to 400 MT of higher protein hard 
red spring wheat (HRS). In 2020 and 2021, the estimated total value of 
the company's purchases was more than $8 million.
    In October 2021, U.S. industry used MAP and FMD funding to conduct 
training activities with the customer to help them create blends of 
flour to meet specific product applications using U.S. wheat, showing 
the superior quality for Vietnamese Bahn Mi baguettes.
    In addition to the steady purchase of U.S. wheat in 2021 and 2022 
valued at more than $12 million, the company has reported that flour 
made from U.S. wheat is now ``irreplaceable'' for making high-quality 
Vietnamese wheat foods. This new market could not have been achieved 
without the partnership between USDA and industry using market access 
funds.
    With that said, these programs have remained stagnant in their 
funding levels since 2002, even as more groups and businesses apply for 
funding while our competitors abroad outspend us in their own export 
promotion efforts.
    Making a significant increase to MAP and FMD funding in the next 
farm bill will help U.S. agriculture protect the markets in which we 
currently sell, while helping to grow and establish new markets 
elsewhere.
Food Aid
    The feeding of hungry people around the world through U.S. food aid 
programs is a worthy and noble endeavor and has benefited millions of 
people throughout the world. Food Aid programs also represent a key 
component of the U.S. bulk grain export market. Every year NAEGA member 
companies sell millions of tons of commodities, which are exported 
through various food aid programs.
    As exporters, we see much opportunity to strengthen U.S. food aid 
programs and reduce unintentional damage to commercial markets. 
Recognizing the need for a sound review and improved effectiveness of 
our international food aid programs, NAEGA supports three policy 
objectives:

   Provide policy and financial sustainability in programs to 
        improve performance in the delivery of U.S. food aid to 
        recipients.

   Align food aid programming with our national priorities, 
        agricultural market development objectives, and domestic 
        agriculture support programs.

   Recognition that food aid is a key component of overall 
        trade policy and warrants coordination and compatibility with 
        our national interest in expanding economies through more open 
        and free international trade.
Credit
    Export credit programs are also important to our industry, and a 
valuable tool for cooperatives like CHS, that export around the world 
to countries that are often politically or financially less stable. 
Specifically, the Export Credit Guarantee Program, also known as GSM-
102, which guarantees repayment when U.S. banks extend credit to 
foreign banks to finance sales of U.S. agricultural products, is a 
critical support to the U.S. agriculture export market.
    In the past 12 months alone CHS has used the GSM-102 program for 
nearly $300 million worth of bulk grain and trade financing. With that 
said, we still feel there is room for improvement. In particular, the 
program could be improved by removing capital limitations that unfairly 
impact cooperative bank lenders, like CoBank, due to their cooperative 
structure. Removing, or changing the statute so that the limitations 
are tied to assets instead of capital on hand, would allow these 
lenders to serve other cooperatives and their farmer owners more 
efficiently.
Supply chain
    A robust and reliable transportation infrastructure system is 
crucial to the ability to ship agricultural goods from the heartland to 
export facilities to be sent abroad. CHS recently announced a $105 
million expansion to our facility in Myrtle Grove, Louisiana, which is 
expected to be completed in early 2024, and will allow CHS to move over 
300 million bushels of grain annually to global customers in less time, 
with fewer bottlenecks. CHS has owned and operated this facility since 
1994 and is the closest grain facility to the river's mouth, south of 
New Orleans. It operates 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days per 
year, loading up to 4,000 barges of corn and soybeans, sourced from as 
far north as Minnesota, annually.
    At CHS, our integrated supply chains allow us to navigate bottle 
necks and other barriers to feed hungry people across the world. We 
experienced this firsthand during a period of low Mississippi River 
water levels last year. CHS shifted commodity flows and leveraged our 
Pacific Northwest export facilities for continued market access to 
Asia. This would not have been possible without a functioning system of 
trucking, rail, and inland waterways. Specifically, it required 
navigational access to the Columbia and Snake River Systems. This river 
system is the third-largest grain export corridor in the world, 
transporting nearly thirty percent of U.S. grain and oilseed exports. 
The system is supported by locks and dams that are vital to the ability 
to move goods across the country, to facilities like ours, in 
Washington and Oregon. If these locks and dams were removed, it would 
cut off access to important global markets for farmers across the 
country.
    CHS, and our farmer owners, are committed to identifying new market 
opportunities and investing in export-import infrastructure at 
strategic locations around the country, but it is important that the 
U.S. Government is a partner in this effort. Over the past 2 years, 
Congress has approved much-needed legislation to improve waterways 
infrastructure funding. The timely and efficient distribution of these 
funds is important. Most U.S. locks and dams have surpassed their 
expected 50 year design life, increasing delays and unscheduled outages 
that threaten to erode America's competitive infrastructure advantage.
Conclusion
    On behalf of CHS and NAEGA, thank you again for having me here 
today to discuss the state of agriculture trade.
    Agriculture is a global industry. The ability to export 
agricultural goods to hungry customers across the world is not only 
crucial to the success of CHS as a company, but it is also of the 
utmost importance to the livelihood of our farmer and rancher owners 
and the rural communities where they live. However, over the last 
decade, we have seen global agriculture trade flows shift, often away 
from the United States and towards our competitors as new trade 
alliances form.
    If the United States is to remain the global leader in feeding the 
world, an issue with direct implications for national security, we must 
enact policies that best allow the American farmer and agribusinesses 
like CHS to do what we do best: grow and sell the safest, most 
abundant, and reliable food in the world.
    I appreciate your time and would be happy to answer any questions 
you have for me.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. We will now move on 
to Ms. Stevermer.

         STATEMENT OF LORI STEVERMER, PRESIDENT-ELECT, 
           NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; CUSTOMER 
         SUCCESS MANAGER, ALLTECH U.S. PORK BUSINESS, 
                           EASTON, MN

    Ms. Stevermer. Well, good morning, Chairman Finstad, 
Ranking Member Hayes, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am 
Lori Stevermer. My husband Dale and I raise pigs and crops near 
Easton, Minnesota, and I work for Alltech as a Customer Success 
Manager as part of the U.S. Pork Business Team. I am also 
President-Elect of the National Pork Producers Council. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of NPPC and the 
nation's 66,000 pork producers. Trade is critical to the U.S. 
pork industry. Last year we exported nearly $7.7 billion worth 
of pork, and those exports supported 155,000 mostly rural U.S. 
jobs, and added $14.5 billion to the country's GDP. More 
importantly, exports equated to about $61 per head, and about 
25 percent of our pork is exported.
    The U.S. pork industry, like a lot of industries, has gone 
through some tough times over the past several years, but 
exports continue to be a bright spot for producers. Our trade 
successes can largely be attributed to our ability to produce 
the world's safest, most nutritious, most affordable, and to 
fair and unfettered access to foreign markets, negotiated 
through comprehensive trade agreements. It is clear that such 
agreements are why we have been, on average, the top pork 
exporter in the world over the past decade. U.S. pork exports 
have increased more than 1,800 percent in value, and more than 
1,500 percent in volume, since 1989, the year the U.S. 
implemented its first substantial free trade agreement.
    Comprehensive trade deals eliminate tariff and non-tariff 
barriers to U.S. goods, and they are vehicles for setting 
science-based standards, and for resolving trade disputes that 
may arise. Policies that foster the free flow of goods and 
expand export markets are critical to the continued success of 
America's pork producers, U.S. agriculture, and the overall 
American economy. The bottom line, the United States needs more 
comprehensive trade agreements.
    The U.S. pork industry has several trade priorities. First, 
negotiate better market access for U.S. agriculture in the 
Asia/Pacific region. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for 
Prosperity is a good starting point, but market access and 
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers should be part of 
the discussion. Separately, the U.S. should continue urging the 
Philippines and Vietnam, which are in the IPEF, to make the 
tariff reductions on pork they imported the past couple of 
years permanent. Both countries have tremendous potential for 
U.S. pork exports. Second, urge China to drop its 25 percent 
retaliatory tariff on U.S. pork muscle cuts. Coupled with its 
MFN tariff, U.S. pork pays a 33 percent tariff, compared with 
eight percent rate for our competitors in the market.
    Third, leverage U.S. preferential trade programs, such as 
the Generalized System of Preference in the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 106-200), to open markets that 
currently restrict U.S. pork exports, despite those countries 
getting duty-free access to the United States. Fourth, address 
our own trade limiting policies, including restrictions on H-2A 
visas that don't allow their use for year-round farm and 
packing plant labor, and a proposed labeling rule that would 
likely violate WTO trade rules, and could prompt retaliation 
from our trading partners.
    Fifth, prevent African Swine Fever from reaching the U.S. 
mainland, if we can't do this, all those other priorities will 
be irrelevant. An ASF outbreak in the U.S. would immediately 
close foreign markets to our pork exports, devastating our 
producers in other proteins, and the corn and soybean meal 
farmers who provide livestock feed. That is why it is 
imperative we focus on prevention and planning for all foreign 
animal diseases.
    In conclusion, fair and unfettered trade has helped the 
United States become an economic powerhouse. To maintain that 
position, the country must expand trade in existing markets and 
open new markets, and it must resolve issues that could 
negatively affect our ability to trade. For the U.S. pork 
industry, that means negotiating comprehensive trade agreements 
that eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, expanding market 
access in the Asia/Pacific, including by getting China to 
remove its retaliatory tariff on pork, leveraging and renewing 
U.S. preferential trade programs, addressing the country's 
labor shortage, keeping the U.S. free from African Swine Fever, 
and adequately funding Federal agencies that deal with foreign 
animal diseases. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I would 
be happy to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Stevermer follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Lori Stevermer, President-Elect, National Pork 
    Producers Council; Customer Success Manager, Alltech U.S. Pork 
                          Business, Easton, MN
Introduction
    The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), representing 42 
affiliated state associations, works to ensure the U.S. pork industry 
remains a consistent and responsible supplier of high-quality pork to 
domestic and international markets. Through public-policy outreach, 
NPPC fights for reasonable legislation and regulations, develops 
revenue and market opportunities, and protects the livelihoods of 
America's more than 66,000 pork producers.
    The U.S. pork industry is a significant contributor to the economic 
activity of U.S. agriculture and the broader U.S. economy, marketing 
more than 140 million hogs annually. Those animals provided farm-level 
gross cash receipts of more than $30 billion in 2022.
    To produce those hogs, pork producers used roughly 1.6 billion 
bushels of corn and soybean meal from 433 million bushels of soybeans 
in 2022. The industry also purchases more than $1.6 billion in other 
feed ingredients.
    Economists at the NPPC [] and Iowa State University estimated that 
in 2021 the U.S. pork industry was directly responsible for creating 
more than 366,000 full-time-equivalent jobs in pork production and 
generated roughly 122,000 jobs throughout all of agriculture. In 
addition, the pork sector was responsible for 138,000 jobs in 
meatpacking and processing and 399,000 jobs in professional services 
such as financial services, insurance and real estate. In total, the 
U.S. pork industry supports 610,000 mostly rural jobs in the United 
States and adds more than $57 billion to the country's GDP.
    Most importantly, U.S. pork producers in 2022 provided more than 27 
billion pounds of safe, wholesome and nutritious meat protein to 
consumers worldwide.
    Today is a challenging time in the U.S. pork industry. This year, 
hog producers are losing an average of $40 per head on each hog 
marketed. While hog prices have moderated significantly since 2022, 
current losses are largely due to record-high production costs that 
have increased up to 50 percent in the past year. These losses are 
putting a pinch on the pork industry, and this economic reality may 
force producers to exit the industry and drive consolidation at the 
farm-level. This only adds to the uncertainty that already exists with 
the credit market and the presence of African swine fever (ASF) in the 
Western Hemisphere.
Pork Exports
    Trade is vital to America's pork producers, who annually export 
about a quarter of their total production to more than 100 countries. 
The pork industry exported $7.68 billion of pork in 2022. Exports 
equated to about $61, or 25 percent, in value for each hog that was 
marketed in 2022, supported 155,000 American jobs and contributed more 
than $14.5 billion to the U.S. economy, according to Iowa State 
University economists.
    Despite numerous challenges, a strong U.S. dollar, ongoing supply 
chain issues and trade retaliation from some of its top foreign 
markets, the U.S. pork industry continues to export a significant 
amount of pork. In fact, through March of this year, America's pork 
producers have shipped $2.0 billion worth of product to foreign 
destinations compared to about $1.7 billion for the same period last 
year. This equates to nearly a 14 percent increase.
    Annual exports of U.S. pork have been increasing for the past 
several years, generally because of improving economies and a rising 
middle class in countries worldwide. Other factors driving those 
increases include the emergence of robust hotel and restaurant 
industries in some nations--particularly as world travel has become 
relatively easier and affordable. Additionally, several important U.S. 
export markets in Southeast Asia, for example, have been battling ASF 
for the past several years creating demand for increased pork imports, 
benefiting U.S. pork producers.
Trade Deals Key to Increasing Exports
    The biggest reason for U.S. pork export growth over the past 2 
decades has been through trade initiatives, whether free trade 
agreements (FTAs), less-formal trade and investment framework 
agreements (TIFAs) or one-off market access deals. Through such 
initiatives, the United States moved from a net importer to a net 
exporter of pork in 1995.
    In fact, due to trade agreements, U.S. pork exports have increased 
more than 1,850 percent in value and more than 1,560 percent in volume 
since 1989, the year the United States implemented its FTA with Canada 
and started opening international markets for value-added agriculture 
products.
    Since 2000, pork exports to FTA countries have increased 913 
percent, and in countries where the United States has negotiated 
preferential market access and where tariffs were slashed, pork exports 
increased tremendously. The chart below shows the trajectory of U.S. 
pork exports over the past 3+ decades.
U.S. Pork Exports Throughout the Years

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    In addition to comprehensive trade agreements granting better 
market access for U.S. pork, they are usually the best avenue for 
accepting U.S. agricultural science-based standards and for broader 
non-tariff market access issues to be resolved.
    Policies that foster the free flow of goods and expand export 
markets--mostly through trade agreements--are critical to the continued 
success of America's pork producers, U.S. agriculture and the overall 
American economy. The bottom line: The United States needs more 
comprehensive trade agreements that eliminate or significantly reduce 
tariffs on and non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports.
Success of FTAs
    Proof of the success of FTAs can be seen in the robust trade among 
the United States, Canada and Mexico under the 1994 North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which set a zero-tariff rate for pork, and, 
now, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which updated the 25 
year old NAFTA. In fact, Canada and Mexico are the top two destinations 
for U.S. goods and services, accounting for nearly \1/4\ of total U.S. 
exports with an average value of $1.49 billion each day.
    While trade between the United States and Canada has been good even 
before the countries signed their FTA, trade between the United States 
and Mexico before NAFTA was somewhat anemic, totaling only $50 billion 
each way in 1993. Today, U.S. exports to Mexico are valued at $324 
billion. U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico have grown nearly 508 
percent since NAFTA was implemented.
    Regarding the U.S. pork trade, Mexico and Canada were the No. 1 and 
No. 4 export markets, respectively, for the U.S. pork industry in 2022. 
From 1993, the year before NAFTA was implemented, to 2022, U.S. pork 
exports to Mexico increased 915 percent, from just 210 million pounds 
to almost 2.1 billion pounds, and exports to Canada went from 33.6 
million pounds to nearly 432 million pounds.
    The United States has seen similar results after negotiating other 
FTAs, with the U.S. pork industry seeing growth in exports to 
Australia, Chile, Colombia, the DR-CAFTA countries--Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua--Panama, Peru, 
Singapore and South Korea.
    It is important to note, and contrary to critics and as shown by 
data, FTAs do not negatively affect U.S. partner countries. The Mexican 
pork industry, for example, has grown significantly since NAFTA went 
into effect and U.S. pork exports to Mexico began increasing. Estimates 
are that from 1995 to 2011, pork production in Mexico increased by 
nearly 70 percent. That rise was accompanied by and often was the 
result of, improvements in Mexico of disease prevention and eradication 
efforts, efficiencies in slaughter and processing plants, and a 
significant increase in Mexican consumer demand. Its surge in pork 
production also prompted Mexico to start exporting pork to foreign 
destinations, including the United States.
Looking East
    More recently, the U.S. pork industry has focused much of its 
attention on the Asia-Pacific region because of its strong economic 
growth and the population's cultural preference for pork.
    In early 2020, for example, China and the United States struck the 
``Phase One'' trade deal that helped boost U.S. pork exports to the 
Asian giant, which took in nearly $1.3 billion of American pork last 
year. That made it the No. 3 value market for the U.S. pork industry.
    But exports to China continue to be constrained because of that 
country's 25 percent retaliatory duty. It had been 72 percent--on pork 
muscle cuts in response to U.S. tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese 
goods, including steel and aluminum, and concerns with forced 
intellectual property transfers. U.S. pork tariffs in China are a 
cumulative 33 percent compared with eight percent for the rest of the 
world. Only pork variety meats are competitive in the Chinese market. 
The United States could be exporting more pork if not for the continued 
tariffs.
    Japan continues to be a strong market for U.S. pork. The Phase One 
deal with Japan went into effect on January 1, 2020, which put U.S. 
pork on a level playing field with other major pork exporters and is 
the U.S. pork industry's No. 2 market in 2022. The Phase One deal has 
also helped regain some of the access lost in Japan after the United 
States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
    In April 2021, after years of NPPC working with the U.S. and 
Philippine Governments, the Philippines announced it would increase its 
quota (Minimum Access Volume, or MAV) and cut tariffs on pork to curb 
food price inflation caused by African swine fever (ASF) outbreaks in 
the country. NPPC worked with USDA and the Philippines Government on a 
project to address challenges related to ASF and support safe 
international trade of U.S. pork.
    U.S. pork exports to the Philippines have increased by 100 percent 
to over $122 million since mid-2021. Although these great results 
benefited U.S. pork producers, the tariff reductions are not permanent 
and set to expire at the end of 2023.
    The U.S. pork industry continues to urge the Philippines Government 
to make the tariff reductions permanent. A major downside of not having 
a comprehensive trade agreement is that tariff reductions are seldom 
permanent.
    Vietnam also recently agreed to give better market access to U.S. 
pork through the reduction of tariffs, cutting its Most Favored Nation 
(MFN) duty on frozen pork to 10 from 15 percent. The U.S. pork industry 
is encouraged by the negotiations with Vietnam and hopes they lead to 
broader trade discussions.
    Despite the reduction in tariffs, U.S. pork still faces a 
disadvantage in Vietnam. Countries such as Russia, the nations in the 
Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the 
EU have FTAs with Vietnam that include zero or low tariffs on frozen 
pork.
    Last fall, the Biden Administration began talks with the 13 other 
countries, including the Philippines and Vietnam, that comprise the 
Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). While NPPC is 
supportive of the negotiations, it wants to see market access addressed 
to help gain market share in the region. Cohesive standard setting and 
adoption of international sanitary and phytosanitary standards will not 
be enough to allow U.S. pork producers to compete in the region.
    The U.S.-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade was launched in 
June 2022 to develop concrete ways to deepen the countries' economic 
and trade relationship. NPPC supports the negotiations and hopes 
ongoing trade-limiting restrictions can be resolved.
    In 2021, Taiwan implemented new food safety labeling that targets 
the United States. Since then, U.S. pork exports have dropped to $13 
million in 2022 from $54 million in 2020. During that same period, 
Taiwan increased its imports from U.S. competitors. NPPC is urging U.S. 
negotiators to use the existing U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment 
Framework Agreement as a mechanism to resolve these market access 
issues.
    A decade ago, the rise of markets in Asia and the potential for 
more access in that region--deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
(TPP)--prompted the U.S. pork industry to expand. The industry 
constructed five new pork packing plants across rural America while the 
United States negotiated the TPP.
Looking Across the Pond
    Since 2020, the United Kingdom has sought closer economic ties with 
the United States when it began its divorce (``Brexit'') from the 
European Union. Today, the UK is one of the world's top importers of 
pork, purchasing about $2.5 billion of pork annually. But because of 
its numerous tariff and non-tariff barriers, the country imported just 
$1.1 million--0.04 percent--of U.S. pork in 2022.
    Considering the UK's population of 67 million and its cultural and 
culinary tastes are similar to those of the United States, a 
comprehensive trade agreement with the country would potentially offer 
a major increase in UK demand for U.S. agricultural products, including 
pork.
    NPPC is supportive of U.S. talks with the UK but wants any trade 
agreement to include the elimination of tariff and non-tariff trade 
barriers on U.S. pork and a requirement that the UK adopt international 
production standards.
Preferential Trade Programs
    Almost every FTAs the United States has concluded was made possible 
by the enactment of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation. TPA 
gives U.S. negotiators the ability to extract the best deals possible 
from trading partners. Without it, no country would be willing to make 
concessions to the United States for fear that Congress could 
subsequently demand more. That is why NPPC and nearly every other 
agricultural organization in the United States are in favor of Congress 
expeditiously reauthorizing TPA, which expired July 1, 2021. TPA lets 
U.S. Trade Representatives negotiate from a position of strength, 
prompting U.S. trading partners to cut to their bottom-line negotiating 
position.
    The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) expired on 
December 31, 2020. GSP, which provides nonreciprocal, duty-free 
treatment of goods exported to the United States from beneficiary 
developing countries, is also an important trade enforcement tool that 
gives U.S. trade negotiators leverage to address market access concerns 
if GSP-eligible countries do not meet statutory eligibility criteria 
set by Congress.
    The U.S. pork industry has successfully used GSP as a mechanism to 
gain market access to key countries where negotiations have stalled. A 
good example of where GSP could be used as leverage is with Thailand, 
which has a de facto ban on U.S. pork. The country maintains high 
tariffs and several non-tariff barriers on U.S. pork despite getting 
duty-free access to the United States under the GSP. (Thailand is part 
of the IPEF talks.)
    NPPC supports the renewal of GSP, so U.S. trade negotiators have 
another tool to get countries to eliminate trade restrictions on U.S. 
products.
    Like GSP, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) provides 
nonreciprocal market access for eligible sub-Saharan African countries, 
with duty-free access to the U.S. market for over 1,800 products. 
Currently, 36 countries are eligible for AGOA benefits. In 2015, 
Congress passed legislation modernizing and extending the program to 
2025.
    During the last AGOA negotiations, South Africa agreed to partially 
lift its ban on U.S. pork. However, since then, it has continued to 
impose multiple restrictions on the importation of pork, meaning very 
little has been exported to that country. As Congress looks to renew 
AGOA in 2025, discussions must include negotiations on full market 
access without restrictions.
Trade-Limiting Issues Affecting U.S. Pork Trade
    Like much of agriculture, the pork industry is dealing with a lack 
of available workers. The labor shortage was already a problem before 
COVID and was further exacerbated by the pandemic. It is still an 
issue, with some farms facing job vacancy rates as high as 30 percent 
despite offering record-high wages and benefits. Further, many pork 
packing plants lack enough workers to run second and/or Saturday and 
Sunday shifts, making it difficult for supply to keep up with demand, 
including for export markets.
    Expanding the existing H-2A visa program to allow year-round 
agricultural workers, including packing plant workers, without a cap on 
the number of visas available is the only solution, given rural 
America's declining population. Currently, the visa allows only 
temporary seasonal labor.
    A potential regulatory matter that also may affect trade is the 
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service's proposed rule on ``Product of 
the USA'' labeling. Given that the regulation includes the same 
standard as a Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) statute that Congress 
repealed in 2015, there are concerns among the U.S. meat and poultry 
industries that Canada and Mexico will challenge the rule as an unfair 
non-tariff trade barrier with the World Trade Organization and be 
authorized by the WTO to impose retaliatory tariffs on the United 
States as they did on COOL.
    ASF is another factor that could not only limit the U.S. pork trade 
but stop it outright. The swine-only viral disease has helped boost 
U.S. pork exports to some countries stricken with ASF, such as China 
and the Philippines. Now that it has been detected in the Western 
Hemisphere (the Dominican Republic and Haiti in mid-2021), ASF poses a 
bigger threat to the United States than it did when it was mainly 
confined to Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. An outbreak here would 
reverberate throughout the farm economy. Not only devastating the pork 
industry but other U.S. proteins and the corn and soybean farmers who 
provide feed to livestock.
    That's why the U.S. pork industry is working with USDA and other 
Federal agencies to help stop the spread of ASF and to prevent the 
disease from reaching the U.S. mainland. Following its detection in the 
Dominican Republic and Haiti, the Agriculture Department dedicated $500 
million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to prevent and 
prepare for ASF. More must be done to keep this high-mortality disease 
out of the United States.
    To that end, NPPC is continuing to ask Congress to provide funding 
for additional staff for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service's Veterinary Services field force, more money for the National 
Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) and support for U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) stop agricultural contraband at U.S. ports 
of entry.
    Additionally, the next farm bill should also include adequate 
funding for the agriculture industry's principal export promotion 
programs: the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development 
Program.
International Organizations
    The United States must continue to be involved in international 
trade bodies, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the U.N. 
Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) and World Health 
Organization's (WHO) Codex Alimentarius, or Codex.
    The WTO operates the global system of trade rules among 168 member 
nations and has a dispute settlement body for resolving trade 
disagreements. Codex sets international standards, guidelines and codes 
of practice to promote food safety and quality and fair trade. NPPC 
serves on the Codex committees covering veterinary drug residues, food 
hygiene, food labeling, import and export inspection and certification 
systems, and general practices.
Conclusion
    The importance of trade to the U.S. pork industry and to the entire 
U.S. economy cannot be overstated. Exports account for nearly a quarter 
of U.S. pork production and contribute significantly to the bottom line 
of U.S. pork producers and to U.S. agriculture's balance of trade.
    Free, fair and unfettered trade has helped the United States become 
an economic powerhouse. To maintain that position, the country must 
expand trade in existing markets and open new markets, and it must 
resolve issues that could negatively affect the ability to trade.
    For the U.S. pork industry, that means: negotiating comprehensive 
trade agreements; expanding market access in Asian countries such as 
the Philippines and Vietnam; getting China to remove its retaliatory 
tariffs on pork; renewing U.S. preferential trade programs; addressing 
the country's labor shortage; keeping the United States free from ASF; 
and adequately funding the Federal agencies that deal with foreign 
animal diseases.
    Growth in pork sales and other agricultural commodities largely 
lies outside the United States. America's farmers can tap that 
potential and continue to fuel the U.S. rural economy if they have 
access to foreign markets, access that's gained through comprehensive 
trade agreements and international and domestic policies that allow for 
the free flow of goods.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Stevermer. We got a gift of 
rain back home, so you couldn't plant corn, so it is great that 
you are able to be here and spend your time. We will move on 
now to Mr. Lantz. Welcome.

           STATEMENT OF MATT LANTZ, VICE PRESIDENT, 
GLOBAL ACCESS, BRYANT CHRISTIE INC., SEATTLE, WA; ON BEHALF OF 
                  INTERNATIONAL FRESH PRODUCE 
              ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL POTATO COUNCIL

    Mr. Lantz. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Finstad, 
Ranking Member Hayes, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name 
is Matt Lantz, and I am the Vice President for Global Access at 
Bryant Christie, Incorporated, a Seattle and Sacramento-based 
consulting firm dedicated to helping U.S. farmers export. For 
the past 24 years I have worked to open and maintain markets 
for U.S. fruit, vegetable, and nut growers. Our firm represents 
industries as diverse as potatoes, almonds, hops, berries, and 
tree fruit. My work is focused on tariffs, sanitary and 
phytosanitary barriers, and overcoming non-tariff barriers. We 
cooperate closely with the USTR, and USDA's FAS and APHIS. I 
would like to focus my presentation on two important issues for 
the horticultural sector. The first is the continuing and 
growing challenge of differing pesticide maximum residue levels 
around the world, and the second is the importance of the 
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program.
    Differing pesticide MRLs are among the fastest growing and 
most challenging trade barriers all U.S. farmers face. A U.S. 
farmer can do everything right. They can follow the pesticide 
label, sustainably grow their crop, and keep meticulous 
records. The product can be perfectly compliant in the United 
States, but when they reach a foreign shore, because that 
country does not have a standard established, or that standard 
is more restrictive, the product can be rejected. Such costs of 
rejection are high. The shipment must be re-exported or 
destroyed, fees add up, and sanctions can be placed on the 
shipper. Beyond the shipper, entire industries may be subject 
to elevated testing and the public may lose confidence in the 
product, all for a product that is fully compliant in the U.S.
    Originally, the United States was one of the few countries 
in the world that had MRL standards. Over the course of the 
last 20 years, numerous markets have transitioned to their own 
MRL systems. Let me give you an example. On January 1, 2022, 
the Korean Government implemented a new comprehensive MRL 
policy. It implemented a long transition policy that allowed 
sufficient time for many U.S. commodity groups to seek and 
establish hundreds of needed MRLs in Korea. Unfortunately, even 
with a smooth transition, issues can emerge. Just before 
Christmas 2021, I was contacted by the U.S. potato industry. 
Despite obtaining over 100 MRLs in Korea, an application for an 
important pesticide had not been made, and worse still, much of 
the 2021 potato crop had already been treated with the 
compound. There was a high risk of a residue violation, and 
over $100 million worth of trade was at risk. Fortunately, 
working with the USTR, FAS, the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, and the 
Korean Government, a new MRL was established in record time, 4 
months, and there was a minimal trade disruption, but the 
potato industry was fortunate. Finding such a fast and workable 
solution is not often the case.
    Perhaps the biggest challenge currently facing U.S. 
agriculture regarding MRLs is the European Union's pesticide 
policies. While the U.S. and most of the rest of the world 
considered hazard and risk in determining their MRLs, the EU 
only considers hazard. This conservative methodology is causing 
harm to U.S. and global exports. The upshot of the EU's 
policies is the reduction of thousands of MRLs to levels lower 
than U.S. and international standards. As a result, U.S. 
farmers exporting to Europe cannot apply needed crop protection 
products due to concerns. For example, the U.S. cranberry 
industry exports over $80 million of product to Europe, but 
cannot use its most effective and widely used fungicide when 
shipping to Europe because of their reduced MRL. Moreover, the 
EU is seeking to export this methodology to other markets. If 
that is successful, we will all have major negative impact on 
U.S. agriculture exports.
    MRLs are incredibly challenging, albeit somewhat dry, and 
USTR and USDA are now working hard to ensure that our exports 
are not hindered, which leads me to TASC. The Tactical 
Assistance for Specialty Crop Program is funded under the 2018 
Farm Bill at $9 million annually. Although smaller than the 
other grant programs administered by FAS, TASC plays a crucial 
role for specialty crop growers in addressing barriers that may 
emerge. Since its inception, TASC funds have been used to 
address a variety of trade issues, including MRLs. Crucially, 
TASC funds are used to ensure that anyone in the U.S. has 
access to the MRL Database. This database allows all U.S. 
growers to immediately know what the foreign MRLs are so issues 
can be avoided. Without this database, rejections of U.S. 
shipments would occur on a regular basis.
    But TASC is not just for MRLs. It can be used for many 
trade barriers. Perhaps one of its greatest successes has been 
to assist with opening the Mexican market for U.S. fresh 
potatoes. In 2014, 3 weeks after the Mexican market opened, the 
Mexican potato growers filed ten court cases to halt all U.S. 
fresh potato imports. In response, the National Potato Council 
applied for TASC funds to hire experts in Mexico City to 
challenge this trade barrier. Their work culminated in the 
Mexican Supreme Court ruling unanimously in favor of U.S. 
potato exports in 2022. Without TASC, the market would remain 
closed. In the year since the market has opened our shipments 
have grown by 56 percent, in terms of value. TASC plays an 
important role in keeping specialty crops in key export 
markets. U.S. specialty crop growers know when an unexpected 
trade barrier emerge, TASC is an option. We urge its continued 
support. I would be happy to answer any questions about this or 
other issues. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lantz follows:]

Prepared Statement of Matt Lantz, Vice President, Global Access, Bryant 
 Christie Inc., Seattle, WA; on Behalf of International Fresh Produce 
                  Association; National Potato Council
    Good morning, Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and Members 
of the Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee. 
My name is Matt Lantz, and I am the Vice President for Global Access at 
Bryant Christie Inc. Bryant Christie is a Seattle- and Sacramento-based 
consulting firm that helps U.S. agriculture exporters open, access, and 
develop markets.
    For the past 24 years, I have worked to open and maintain export 
markets for U.S. fruit, vegetable, and nut growers. Our firm represents 
industries as diverse as potatoes, almonds, hops, berries, and tree 
fruit. My work has focused on tariffs, sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures, and overcoming technical barriers to trade and non-tariff 
barriers. We cooperate closely with the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office and USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service and Animal [and] Plant 
Health Inspection Service, both here and with officials stationed in 
embassies around the world.
    BCI's goal is to help U.S. farmers export. If allowed to compete 
fairly, America's fresh produce growers can compete with anyone.
    I would like to focus my presentation on two important issues for 
the horticultural sector. The first is the continuing and growing 
challenge of differing pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs) 
standards around the world. The second is the importance of the 
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program.
MRLs
    Differing pesticide Maximum Residue Levels are among the fastest 
growing and most challenging trade barriers U.S. farmers and exporters 
face. A U.S. farmer can do everything right. He or she can follow the 
label set forward by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regarding pesticide use. He or she can responsibly and sustainably grow 
the product and keep meticulous records. His or her product can be 
perfectly compliant with all U.S. regulations, but because a foreign 
market either has not established a standard or has set a MRL at a more 
restrictive level than the U.S., that product can be rejected when it 
arrives in a foreign port.
    The costs of such a rejection are high. The shipment must be re-
exported or destroyed, demurrage fees can add up, and sanctions can be 
placed on the shipper. Beyond the individual shipper, entire industries 
may be subject to elevated testing and the public may lose confidence 
in the product--all for a product that is safe and fully compliant in 
the U.S.
    Originally, the United States was one of the few countries in the 
world that had its own MRL standards. Over the course of the last 20 
years, numerous markets have transitioned to their own MRL systems. As 
a result, U.S. ag industries must seek MRLs in such markets or risk 
serious economic consequences.
    Let me give you an example of how this plays out. Over the course 
of about 7 years, the Korean Government established a positive MRL 
list. They provided ample time for commodity groups, registrants, and 
foreign governments to seek new MRLs in Korea. During the transition 
period, temporary MRLs were in place. On January 1, 2022, Korea 
implemented its new policy and all temporary MRLs were removed.
    Korea's long transition allowed sufficient time for many U.S. 
commodity groups to establish hundreds of needed MRLs in Korea.
    Unfortunately, even with a smooth transition, issues emerged. Just 
before Christmas in 2021, I was contacted by the U.S. potato industry. 
Despite obtaining over 100 potato MRLs in Korea, an application for an 
important pesticide had not been made. Worse still, much of the 2021 
potato crop had already been treated with the compound. There was a 
high risk of a residue violation. Over $100 million worth of U.S. 
potato exports to Korea were at risk.
    Fortunately, working with the U.S. Trade Representative's office, 
USDA's Foreign Agriculture, Service (FAS), the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, 
the new registrant, and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, a 
new MRL was established in record time and there was minimal trade 
disruption. The U.S. potato industry was fortunate. Finding a fast and 
workable solution is not often the case.
    Perhaps the biggest challenge currently facing U.S. agriculture 
regarding MRLs is the European Union's pesticide policies. While the 
U.S. and most of the rest of the world consider both hazard and 
exposure when determining a MRL, the EU only considers hazard in its 
risk assessment. This conservative methodology based on the 
precautionary principle is causing harm to U.S. and global exports to 
Europe.
    The upshot of the EU's policies is the reduction of thousands of 
MRLs to levels significantly lower than U.S. or international levels. 
As a result, U.S. farmers cannot apply needed crop protection products 
due to concern of a potential violation. The U.S. cranberry industry, 
for example, exports over $80 million annually to Europe, but cannot 
use its most effective and widely used fungicide because the EU reduced 
the MRL.
    Moreover, the EU is seeking to export its methodology to third 
markets. To quote the Farm to Fork strategy, ``It is also clear that we 
cannot make a change unless we take the rest of the world with us.'' If 
successful, this will have a major negative impact on U.S. agriculture 
exports.
    MRLs are incredibly challenging, and USTR, USDA/FAS, and our 
embassies around the world are working hard to ensure that U.S. 
agriculture is not hindered due to this complicated issue. Which leads 
me to TASC.
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program
    TASC is funded under the 2018 Farm Bill at $9 million annually. 
Although significantly smaller than other programs administered by 
USDA/FAS such as the Market Access Program or Foreign Market 
Development, TASC plays a crucial role for specialty crop growers in 
addressing trade barriers that emerge.
    Since its inception, TASC funds have been used to address a variety 
of trade barriers, including MRLs. Industries such as cherries, 
blueberries, and citrus, all used TASC funds to ensure needed MRLs were 
established in Korea.
    Crucially, TASC funds are used to ensure that anyone with an U.S. 
IP address has a subscription to the MRL Database owned by the company 
Food Chain ID. This database allows U.S. growers and shippers to 
compare current U.S. and foreign MRLs so issues can be avoided. Without 
this database, rejections of U.S. agriculture shipments would occur on 
a regular basis.
    TASC is not just for MRLs, though. It can be used to address many 
trade barriers facing U.S. specialty crops.
    Perhaps one of TASC's greatest successes has been to assist with 
opening the Mexican market for U.S. fresh potatoes. Three weeks after 
Mexico opened its market for U.S. potatoes beyond the border zone in 
2014, Mexican potato growers filed a series of injunctions to halt all 
U.S. fresh potato imports. Ten court cases were filed simultaneously to 
keep the market closed.
    In response, the National Potato Council applied for TASC funds to 
hire experts in Mexico City to fight this trade barrier. Their work 
culminated in the Mexican Supreme Court ruling unanimously in favor of 
U.S. potato access in April 2022. Without TASC, the market would remain 
closed. In the year since the market opened, U.S. fresh potato exports 
to Mexico have grown from $56 million to $85 million, an increase of 
56%.
    TASC funds are also used to host necessary foreign delegations to 
open or maintain a market, to conduct research to address trade 
barriers, and to challenge non-tariff barriers.
    The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance supports the continuation of 
this program at $9 million annually. It is important, however, that the 
funds be used exclusively for specialty crops as they were originally 
defined in the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 and 
understood in the current authorizing language. Due to improvements in 
the program made in the 2018 Farm Bill and recommended by the SCFBA, 
TASC is now fully utilized. However, since that time, additional 
commodities have been granted access to TASC. Allowing non-specialty 
crops access to the program has a negative impact on actual specialty 
crop producers. The SCFBA maintains that non-specialty crops should not 
be eligible for TASC.
    Without TASC, U.S. specialty crops would be at a disadvantage. The 
program is ably administered by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service. It 
plays an important role in keeping U.S. specialty crops in key export 
markets. U.S. specialty crop growers know when an unexpected trade 
barrier emerges, TASC is an option to address any issue they might 
face.
    Thank you for your consideration of these two issues, I look 
forward to answering any questions you might have about these or other 
related topics before the Committee.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lantz. Now I would like to 
welcome Ambassador Doud. Please go ahead.

            STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY DOUD, FORMER 
 AMBASSADOR; VICE PRESIDENT OF GLOBAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS & 
 CHIEF ECONOMIST, AIMPOINT RESEARCH, A DIVISION OF DIRECTIONS 
                  RESEARCH, INC., COLUMBUS, OH

    Mr. Doud. Good morning, Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member 
Hayes, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you today to share my 
perspectives on the future of U.S. agricultural export 
opportunities. The future for U.S. agricultural exports is 
bright, assuming that supportive trade, farm, and regulatory 
policies are in place. Much has been accomplished over the 
years which allowed U.S. ag exports last year to reach a record 
$196 billion. But there is more work to be done, and the 
strategy, going forward, must seek to leverage every 
opportunity to increase U.S. market access, despite the absence 
of Trade Promotion Authority. TPA would certainly be preferable 
to a successful strategy to enhance U.S. ag exports, and I 
agree with those who believe bilateral trade agreements with 
the United Kingdom and Kenya should be pursued. However, there 
are still many important ways to make progress and improve 
market access, even without TPA.
    I could give many examples over the years where SPS issues 
have been resolved via the sheer fortitude of our incredible 
government officials at USTR and the USDA's Foreign 
Agricultural Service, in coordination with the many cooperator 
programs that leverage farmer paid check-off dollars in 
combination with taxpayer funds. The return on investment of 
these funds, used in combination with the FMD, MAP, and the 
TASC Program have been without a doubt our best investment in 
the future of U.S. agriculture. The surest way to increase U.S. 
ag exports in the future is to expand upon these hugely 
successful programs. I also think the creation of the Under 
Secretary of Trade position at USDA has been a marvelous 
strategic decision, further elevating the importance of ag 
trade within the USDA and the U.S. Government.
    Going forward, we need other countries to understand that 
the U.S. is willing to make agricultural trade a priority with 
our relationship. We need infrastructure improvement, both 
domestically and in our customers' countries, such as 
improvement in cold chain infrastructure and technologies. We 
have a tremendous advantage in value-added agricultural 
exports, and much work is yet to be done to reach our potential 
in this area, to continue and expand on the excellent work that 
has been done by USTR and USDA in the past decade to help 
countries utilize and understand the critical importance of 
international standard setting bodies such as Codex to foster 
the acceptance of technology and innovations in agriculture.
    For the past couple of years, I have worked for Aimpoint 
Research. We specialize in helping firms in agriculture 
understand what is going to happen 5, 10, 20 years out. The 
pace of change regarding technology in agriculture today is 
unbelievable, and it is rapidly accelerating. The challenge 
will be how our customers and their governments accept and 
adapt to these new technologies. We must not allow the 
recalcitrance of a few to inhibit the way forward. As I 
explained to my Chinese counterpart during the Phase One 
negotiations, the U.S. will never apologize for pursuing new 
technologies in agriculture. To be successful, this topic of 
technology and innovation will still fall back on the basic 
principles of international trade. You have to work with your 
customers and have that relationship. There is a role for all 
of us here to play in this effort.
    The U.S. private-sector spent $12.3 billion pursuing new 
innovation and technology in agriculture in 2021 and $10.6 
billion last year. My most pressing concern, however, is 
getting our government, and other governments around the world, 
to approve these technologies so these innovations, which 
improve the environment, safety, and nutrition of the food we 
produce for consumers everywhere, can be commercialized. Given 
recent regulatory developments in Canada and South American 
countries, the U.S. is falling behind in this aspect. The U.S. 
Government must expeditiously implement regulatory frameworks 
for new technologies that are risk proportionate and accessible 
to all types of entities, big and small, public and private.
    I share the view of many who believe the greatest 
opportunity ahead involves our ability to grow and export 
protein, all types of protein, all around the world. Over the 
next 10 years, the supply of protein in the world will not come 
anywhere near meeting the demand. Without question, the country 
that can best meet this demand is the United States. This 
opportunity is ours for the taking, and if we start today, and 
set up a winning strategy to meet this challenge. As a partner 
in a cow-calf operation myself, I look forward to being a part 
of this strategy, and this great nation's ability to meet this 
global demand for agricultural exports. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doud follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Gregory Doud, Former Ambassador; Vice 
 President of Global Situational Awareness & Chief Economist, Aimpoint 
    Research, a Division of Directions Research, Inc., Columbus, OH
    Subcommittee Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign 
Agriculture and Horticulture, thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before you today to share my perspective on the future of U.S. 
agricultural export opportunities for American's farmers and ranchers.
    The future for U.S. agricultural exports is bright, assuming that 
supportive trade, farm, and regulatory policies are in place and that 
we invest in our infrastructure in ways that facilitates these exports. 
For the vast majority of the past 3 decades, I have worked in various 
capacities in and out of government on a multitude of export market 
access issues across many agricultural commodities. During this time 
U.S. farmers and ranchers have struggled to gain market access 
internationally due to high tariffs, and many difficult non-scientific 
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) trade barriers. These barriers are 
long standing, for example China blocking all wheat produced in the 
U.S. Pacific Northwest due to TCK and the very first ever trade case at 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) versus Europe over beef hormones.
    Much has been accomplished over the years, which allowed U.S. ag 
exports to reach a record $196 billion last year. However, there is 
still so much more work to be done. The strategy going forward must 
seek to leverage every opportunity to increase U.S. market access 
despite the absence of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA would 
certainly be a preferable element of a successful strategy to enhance 
U.S. agricultural exports and I agree with those who believe bilateral 
trade agreements with the United Kingdom and Kenya should be pursued. 
However, there are still many ways to make progress and improve market 
access, even without TPA.
    A free trade agreement negotiation with the United States is not an 
easy objective for any country. I believe many in agriculture 
underestimate the effort, including the engagement with Congress, that 
is necessary to bring such an initiative to a successful conclusion. 
I've been involved, as a cleared advisor or as a government official, 
in ten different negotiations. They're a heavy lift but bilateral trade 
deals have provided enormous benefits over the years. Personally, I am 
most proud of the agreement we have with Japan and the long-standing 
relationship between U.S. farmers and ranchers and Japanese consumers.
    In my experience, it can take about 10 years before we typically 
begin to fully realize the market access stipulated in most of the 
bilateral trade agreements we have completed. This, combined with the 
fact that our competitors have been much more aggressive than we have 
in terms of pursuing bilateral deals to the strategic benefit of their 
farmers, is why we cannot continue to sit idly by as global 
agricultural commodity market access gets carved up.
    I could give many examples over the years where SPS issues have 
been resolved via the sheer fortitude of our incredible government 
officials at USTR and USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service in 
coordination with the many cooperator programs that leverage farmer 
paid check-off dollars in combination with taxpayer funds. The return 
on investment of these funds, used in combination with USDA's Foreign 
Market Development (FMD) program, Market Access Program (MAP), and 
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) has been without a 
doubt our best investment in the future of U.S. agriculture. The surest 
way to increase U.S. agricultural exports in the future is to expand 
upon these hugely successful programs so that we may expand our ability 
to find and develop new markets around the world. I also think the 
creation of the Under [S]ecretary of Trade position at USDA has been a 
marvelous strategic decision, further elevating the importance of 
agricultural trade within the USDA, and the U.S. Government.
    Going forward we need:

   Other countries to understand that the U.S. is willing to 
        make agricultural trade a priority in our relationship.

   Infrastructure improvement--both domestically and in our 
        customers' countries--such as improvement in cold chain 
        infrastructure and technologies. We have a tremendous advantage 
        in value-added agricultural exports and much work is yet to be 
        done to reach our potential in this area.

   To continue and expand on the excellent work that has been 
        done by USTR and USDA in the past decade to help countries 
        utilize and understand the critical importance of international 
        standard setting bodies such as CODEX to foster the acceptance 
        of technological innovations in agriculture.

    I understand that some may be disappointed that I am not including 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) in terms of an improved market 
access strategic objective. I can appreciate this, but frankly as long 
as China and/or India can unilaterally crush such efforts, the WTO is 
going to continue to be a frustrating place to realize achievement. A 
new approach is needed at the WTO if there is to be any possibility of 
making progress in this important multilateral forum.
    For the past couple of years, I have worked for a firm, Aimpoint 
Research, that specializes in advising agricultural firms regarding 
future trends in agriculture--5, 10, 20 years out. The pace of change 
regarding the technology utilized in today's food industry, both in the 
U.S. and internationally, is rapidly accelerating. New products come to 
market practically every day. I have every confidence that U.S. 
producers, processors, and exporters will utilize these technologies to 
not only increase production but also to improve the quality of food 
for consumers all over the world. However, this assumes they have the 
resources, tools, and appropriate regulatory framework in place to do 
so.
    The challenge will be how our customers, and their governments, 
accept and adapt to these new technologies. We must not allow the 
recalcitrance of a few to inhibit the way forward. As I explained to my 
Chinese counterpart during the Phase One negotiations, we will never 
apologize for pursuing new technologies in agriculture. To be 
successful, this topic of technology and innovation in producing more, 
better, safer, and more sustainable food will still fall back on the 
basic principles of international trade. We must continue to foster our 
relationships and build trust with our customers. There is a role for 
all of us to play in this effort.
    The U.S. private-sector spent $12.3 billion pursuing new innovation 
and technologies in agriculture in 2021 and $10.6 billion in 2022. My 
most pressing concern is getting our government and other governments 
around the world to approve these technologies so these innovations, 
which improve the environment, safety, and nutrition of the food we 
produce for consumers everywhere, can be commercialized. Given recent 
regulatory developments in Canada and South American countries, the 
U.S. is falling behind in this aspect. The U.S. Government must 
expeditiously implement regulatory frameworks for new technologies that 
are risk proportionate and accessible to all types of entities, big and 
small, public and private.
    I share the view of many who believe the greatest opportunity ahead 
involves our ability to grow and export protein, all types of protein, 
including meat, dairy, and plant-based, around the world. Over the next 
10 years, the supply of protein in the world will not come anywhere 
near meeting global demand. Without question, the country that can best 
meet this demand is the United States. This opportunity is ours for the 
taking, if starting today, we set upon a winning strategy to meet this 
challenge.
    As a partner in a cow-calf operation myself, I look forward to 
being a part of this strategy and this great nation's ability to meet 
this global demand.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador Doud, and thank you all 
for your testimony, and for being here on this very important 
topic. At this time Members will be recognized for questions in 
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority 
Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after 
the hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each 
in order to allow us to get through as many questions as 
possible. So I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    So, Ms. Stevermer, thank you for noting in your testimony 
the urgent importance of preparedness in response to African 
Swine Fever. We must take the devastating consequences of this 
threat to our farm and food security seriously through an all 
of government approach. According to a recent report by Iowa 
State University, if African Swine Fever were to reach our 
shores, it would cause an immediate 40 to 50 percent reduction 
in U.S. hog prices, and up to $15 billion in industry losses 
over the first 2 years. Would you walk the Subcommittee through 
the impact on trade if ASF were to hit the United States?
    Ms. Stevermer. Thank you, Representative Finstad. First of 
all, I would say that the introduction of a foreign animal 
disease, such as ASF, would mean the loss of family farms. That 
is because, as you alluded to, it stops exports, which is 25 
percent of our pork right now, and was worth $61 a head last 
year in 2022, so that is lost revenue. But ASF doesn't just 
affect pork producers. It affects corn and soybean meal 
farmers, because there are fewer pigs to eat their products. It 
goes even further than that, and it affects agribusiness, 
because now feed suppliers, equipment suppliers, building 
suppliers, have customers, like pork producers, that have fewer 
pigs and lost income. So it is a ripple effect, and it is 
affecting our rural economy, or would affect our rural economy. 
And, quite honestly, the thought AFS--excuse me, ASF on our 
shores is one of the most concerning things to me as a pork 
producer, and someone involved with agribusiness.
    The Chairman. Thank you for that. As you well know, in 
southern Minnesota we have counties that have more pork than 
people, so it is definitely important to our district, and 
really to our country. Moving on, Ambassador Doud, as you know, 
the Mexican Government's decree banning biotech corn imports 
for human consumption is a red line for many corn growers in 
southern Minnesota. We must take the necessary steps to hold 
Mexico to their agreements under the USMCA, and, as you 
mentioned in your testimony, it is critical that we defend 
science-based trade. Until now, and never before in the history 
of trade in GMOs, has a country singled out a crop for import 
ban. Do you believe countries like the EU and UK are closely 
watching how we address the Mexican decree?
    Mr. Doud. Well, I think the EU is always watching; because, 
they use these issues as a non-tariff trade barrier to keep 
products out. I think in the case of Mexico, though, this is a 
play of political domestic consumption, not--I don't think it 
matters, really, what the science is to AMLO (Andres Manuel 
Lopez Obrador), and he is going to continue to do this, which 
makes my point of what I want to say here very important.
    These enforcement mechanisms in these trade agreements, and 
we put a lot of effort into this brand-new enforcement 
mechanism in the USMCA, is critical. We need to use them. I 
think we are going to use them in this case, and that component 
of what we do in our trade policy is very, very important, 
because folks are going to cheat. They are going to try to 
cheat. Well, Canada, in dairy, is doing the same thing, and we 
need to use the teeth in these agreements to get where we need 
to be at the end of the day.
    The Chairman. Yes. Thank you for that. I will close up here 
with one last question. So, at the end of May the Biden 
Administration launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, 
and our farmers have spent several years expressing the 
importance of end market potential, and fair access to the 
Indo-Pacific region. It was disappointing to see the framework 
does not include market access provisions, including tariff 
reductions for U.S. agriculture exports. While other countries 
are moving aggressively to gain market access, the Biden 
Administration has refused to engage.
    So, Mr. Griffith, would you speak to how farm country 
benefits from pursuing trade agreements that reduce or 
eliminate tariffs, resulting in true market access for U.S. ag 
exports?
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Chairman Finstad, for that 
question. Market access, specifically through tariff reduction 
activity, is greatly beneficial to agribusiness and farmers. It 
can have an oversized impact on the general health of the 
agriculture economy. U.S. farmers need markets to sell what 
they grow, and 95 percent of consumers are outside of the 
United States, so exports are critically important. We have 
seen time and again that even a marginal improvement to market 
access tends to make a disproportionate positive impact in 
improvements to commodity prices that are felt all the way back 
to the farm. So every bit of effort in this regard, albeit 
small or large, is cumulative, and important to, and impactful 
to the farm gate, and prices of commodities.
    The Chairman. Thank you for that, and thank you all again 
for being here. We will move on to Ranking Member Hayes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, and thank you all for being here 
today. Predictably, I would like to speak about nutrition. A 
significant barrier to nutritious food is cost. However, a 
stable agricultural market can also keep food prices stable. 
Mr. Griffith, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has made a 
significant impact on global food security, especially with 
access to grain in Northern Africa. How has this impacted U.S. 
grain trade, and did the extension of the Black Sea Grain Deal 
help to stabilize markets?
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
The extension of the Black Sea Trade Corridor absolutely 
greatly contributes to food security, and to those areas. The 
Ukraine is a significant and an important producer of 
agricultural products to the world, and we certainly are 
supportive of the extension of that activity. The conflict in 
general in the Ukraine, obviously, has disrupted global trade 
and tightens up global supply and demand economics, and other 
countries have been benefactors of that, including the United 
States.
    One of the things that is important about the United States 
agricultural supply chain, and the work that we do together as 
public and private members, is have the most reliable, secure 
supply chain and agriculture support and export system in the 
world. And when there is disruption in the world, buyers come 
to the United States, which I think is good evidence of the 
work that we do together, and that we should do more of it.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Many specialty crop growers face 
unique challenges in developing product export markets. 
Climate, pests, disease, and trade barriers can make work 
harder for U.S. producers. The U.S. exports of specialty crops 
reached $24.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2021, accounting for $14.5 
percent of total U.S. agricultural exports. USDA programs like 
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, or TASC, can support 
the sale of specialty crops abroad. Specifically, TASC funds 
projects that address sanitary and phytosanitary issues, or 
technical barriers to trade that threaten U.S. specialty crops. 
In the past, USDA has awarded grants to help increase the shelf 
life of produce, fund research, and detect pathogens to help 
navigate foreign regulations.
    Mr. Lantz, I have heard that TASC can be challenging to 
navigate. What can Congress do to streamline participation in 
TASC, and what efforts can be made specifically to this program 
as we enter the next farm bill?
    Mr. Lantz. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. TASC, 
as I mentioned in my testimony, is incredibly important for 
specialty crop growers. TASC utilization has increased 
significantly in the recent years, and it has become more 
streamlined. The challenge with using TASC is we don't always 
know what the trade barrier is going to be. The fact that it is 
there is a safety net. I think that TASC is ably administered 
by FAS, and I get a lot of TASC grants and work on a lot of 
them with groups, but the knowledge that it is there, and its 
usage for specialty crop growers, continues to be important, 
and I think it needs to continue to be funded at the levels. As 
far as improvements, I think the improvements have already been 
made, as you can see from the usage of the product--or of the 
grant. Thank you.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I think one of the things that I am 
particularly interested in looking at, because we have heard it 
across every sector on every issue, is navigating these 
programs, modernizing the way people access these programs, and 
really streamlining the information that surrounds all of these 
programs, so any assistance that any of the members of the 
panel can give in this area would be greatly appreciated, 
because our efforts should include making these programs easier 
to access, not more difficult, at the Federal level. With that, 
I yield back. Thank you so much for your time.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, 
Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, 
Mr. Lantz, you answered my first question, because it was on 
TASC just then, so, Mrs. Hayes, I appreciate you asking it. I 
had the same question about how it helps. And Ms. Stevermer, 
you mentioned something that I hope the public picks up on, is 
that if African Swine Fever made its way to the shores of this 
country, it wouldn't just impact the pork producers. It would 
have a devastating impact on commodity prices of corn, and 
anything else that is used in feed of our pork population. And 
that is something I think that maybe we don't pay enough 
attention to, is the risk of disease coming into the country, 
and the impact it would have on the ag and ag markets.
    Mr. Griffith, moving to you, you mentioned new trade 
alliances. And you mentioned, in the context of new trade 
alliances between countries other than the United States, I 
believe, is that correct?
    Mr. Griffith. New trade alliances around the world other 
than the United States, yes.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The Biden Administration, 
President Biden, has referred to FTAs, or free trade 
agreements, as 20th century tools. I don't agree with his 
assessment of that. Do you think that free trade agreements are 
20th century tools? Are they useless?
    Mr. Griffith. No, I would not say they are useless, but I 
might yield the question to Ambassador Doud to talk about trade 
policy.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, I was going to ask him 
the same thing. But if I could finish with you, Mr. Griffith, 
other countries, including our adversaries, are overshadowing--
seem to be overshadowing U.S. agriculture commodities in the 
world market. Due to the current approach to trade, and other 
issues, how have you seen export markets and trading practices 
shift with this new attitude from the Biden Administration 
towards agricultural trade?
    Mr. Griffith. Well, as I said in testimony, other countries 
outside of the U.S. are forging trade agreements in a dynamic 
market like global commodity trade, and the long runway that it 
takes to ramp up trade agreements, the activity on this, and 
being diligent, and deliberate, and continuous, is critically 
important, that we continue to be active, and we support those 
type of activities, because of the time it takes to implement, 
and the time to get to impact, and the long times it takes to 
actually negotiate those deals.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes. I think one of the key 
words you mentioned there is continuous. This doesn't stop. 
When you have a change of Administrations, you can't simply 
undo what the previous Administration did because you don't 
like the name or the person. Not doing anything in the last 24 
months I think is going to have long-term lasting impacts on 
our ag exports.
    Mr. Doud, moving to you, do you believe that FTAs are an 
outdated tool? How have you seen the principles of science, 
technology, and innovation be implemented by our existing trade 
practices, and what room for improvement would you suggest?
    Mr. Doud. I definitely do not think they are an outdated 
tool. I do think they are a heavy lift. They are an enormous 
amount of work. They have to be a top priority of the 
Administration, and many of you know, once we negotiated USMCA, 
Ambassador Lighthizer, Ambassador Mahoney, and myself, we were 
up here for hundreds of meetings to work through this process 
of getting Congress to pass these deals. But once you get one 
passed, here is the important thing, USMCA is the gold 
standard. It sets the tone for everybody else in the world to 
see how we deal with regulatory issues in agriculture, SPS 
issues, technology issues. And now we have something going 
forward that we can show other folks. The challenge is that it 
is difficult to do something like that, a gold standard 
agreement, with somebody like Kenya. And so you have to have 
flexibility working back and forth, and that is a great 
challenge that we have, but they are absolutely worth the 
effort.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you all for being here. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you very much, and 
congratulation, Chairman Finstad, on your first hearing. This 
is an important Subcommittee, and I look forward to working 
with you, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to make 
sure that we get a farm bill with a very strong and robust 
nutrition title. However, I do want to associate myself with 
the opening remarks of our Ranking Member. There are 35 million 
Americans that are hungry. This is a huge issue, and it needs 
to be prioritized, and I think there needs to be some greater 
urgency. There is a narrative out there that some are pushing 
that, quite frankly, in my opinion, does not represent the 
reality, and I fear that issues that fall under the 
jurisdiction of this Committee are being determined by other 
committees.
    Two weeks ago, during the consideration of the Republican 
deficit reduction bill in the Rules Committee, I was shocked to 
hear the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee talk about their bill, which 
would have negatively impacted SNAP, but unable to answer the 
most basic questions: including they were unable to answer a 
question about how much the benefit was. I think it is 
important that we do more in this Subcommittee quickly, because 
we all want a farm bill, and we all want to make sure that 
nobody in this country goes hungry, and any farm bill that 
hurts vulnerable people, I think we all should understand, is 
going nowhere.
    Now, this is a hearing on trade, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here, and there are some important ties to 
food security. The Commerce Department is engaged in ongoing 
anti-dumping duty investigations into 10 mill products from 
eight countries. I am concerned about the impact that imposing 
tariffs can have on manufacturers and consumers at a time of 
already high inflation and grocery prices. Food insecurity sits 
at its highest level in 4 years due to record inflation and the 
expiration of pandemic-era aid. This is according to The Urban 
Institute. For households with children, the problem is 
especially acute. Increased costs for canned goods would 
particularly impact vulnerable populations; as well as food 
banks, and consumers who rely on government nutrition and 
feeding assistance programs, such as SNAP and WIC. Studies 
estimate that tariffs are expected to raise canned food prices 
by 19 to 30 percent, which is equivalent to 36 to 58 per can. 
Based on the average purchase of 7.1 canned items per week by 
SNAP/WIC recipients, this could be equivalent to more than $16 
out of the monthly allowance.
    So my question, for any witness, is how can we limit the 
negative impact of trade decisions downstream that contribute 
to rising grocery prices, like the recent consideration of 
tariff duties that would increase the cost of canned food 
products? Ambassador?
    Mr. Doud. Am I the default here? Okay.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, you get----
    Mr. Doud. So, Congressman, that is a great question, and 
the answer is in--when you are--and I have a Master's Degree in 
Agricultural Economics, where you study this, and you say this 
is the right answer, and consumers pay those tariffs, all other 
things being equal. But, Congressman, the answer in this case 
is that all other things are not equal because you have the 
Communist Party of China with their thumb on the scale, where 
they are subsidizing--they are maintaining these industries to 
dominate these industries, and something has to be done. Or 
they are--or you are going to--and particularly in the case 
aluminum and steel, you are not going to have a domestic 
industry whatsoever. And so it is a crude instrument, tariffs 
are, to deal with these issues, but, frankly, it was the only 
tool in the toolbox, and it was something that had to be done.
    Mr. McGovern. Mr. Lantz, do you have anything you want to 
add to that?
    Mr. Lantz. I don't. It is not one of my areas of expertise.
    Mr. McGovern. Anyone else want to comment? Yes.
    Ms. Stevermer. I would just say that, as a pig farmer, I 
have had the opportunity to visit with a lot of consumers at 
city festivals, state fairs, health expos. Pork is a wholesome, 
nutritious, and economical source of protein. I understand your 
concerns with nutrition, and people needing a wholesome, 
economical source of protein, and I just like to remind people 
that that is where pork fits in. I think it is part of a 
nutrition program, whether it is as an individual, or as part 
of a national program, and just support healthy labels that 
allow us to consistently have--or that are based on current 
nutrition science.
    Mr. McGovern. Well, I--I am not--I like pork too, so I am 
not here to--I mean, I am just trying to make the point that 
some of these--some of our actions kind of--at the trade level 
could have an adverse impact on the very people who, quite 
frankly, are struggling with food insecurity right now. And so, 
if the cost of a can increases substantially, and we are not 
increasing people's benefits, that means people have access to 
less food. So that is--I don't know whether anyone else wants 
to add anything, but, in any event, I think I am out of time, 
so thank you very much.
    The Chairman. I would now like to recognize the Chairman of 
the Committee, of the full Agriculture Committee, Mr. Thompson, 
for 5 minutes.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 
Member, for this important Subcommittee hearing on trade. I 
want to thank our witnesses for sharing their time and their 
expertise. Agriculture is the backbone of most of the world's 
economies, and heavily relies on international trade, which 
helps farmers back home and abroad increase their revenue, 
expand their business opportunities, and, most importantly, 
feed, clothe, and fuel the world. Trade is also a vital 
lifeline for rural America. Increased export opportunities 
often led to job creation, wage growth, and improved 
communities. Many of you have heard me talk incessantly about 
how important science, technology, and innovation are to trade, 
and agriculture, and trade competition can act as a catalyst 
for innovation and production techniques as well, not to 
mention a host of other areas contributing to the resilience of 
U.S. agriculture.
    I have just a couple questions here, one a really current 
one. In 2020 Mexico published a Presidential decree--I guess in 
our country that would be an Executive Order, at least that is 
how it was explained to me from folks from Mexico, actually, so 
kind of pretty unilateral. And it was on genetically modified 
corn, saying that it would ban GM corn and the use of herbicide 
glyphosate by January 31, 2024. Earlier this year Mexico 
modified its decree by eliminating the deadline to ban GM corn 
for animal feed and industrial use but left in place its plans 
to ban GM corn use for dough or tortillas.
    These actions lack science-based evidence and appear to be 
in violation of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, 
commonly referred to as USMCA. I was pleased to see USTR 
request technical consultations under the sanitary and 
phytosanitary major chapter of USMCA, but I remain concerned 
about the potential fallouts that could occur if this action is 
not corrected. Ambassador Doud, are you concerned that these 
types of protectionist measures, ones that are not based in 
real science, will become more prevalent worldwide if the 
dispute with Mexico not swiftly resolved?
    Mr. Doud. Mr. Chairman, that is a great question, and the 
answer is I am very concerned about countries adopting 
technology in agriculture, period. We have a mountain of new 
technology coming at us all of the time, but one of the 
greatest technologies and innovations in the last 40 years, the 
OG of climate-smart agriculture, is glyphosate, Roundup. I 
can't imagine what we would do in a world without that 
technology today. What it does for us in terms of soil erosion, 
water quality, conservation, the use of cover crops, the use of 
no-till technology, is all dependent upon that technology of 
many, many years ago. And the fact that now we have all of 
these new technologies coming in behind this, we have to be 
able to help regulators in countries around the world 
understand this use of technology in order to be successful.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for that. In one of our 
listening sessions, roundtable we did recently in North 
Carolina, we had a chance, just by happenstance, sat down and 
had breakfast with the ambassador from India to the United 
States. Mr. Griffith, earlier this year the U.S. was joined by 
Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, and Ukraine in filing a 
counter-notification with the World Trade Organization that 
documents how India's subsidies to their rice and wheat farmers 
far exceed allowable limits, effectively allowing them to sell 
their commodities to the rest of the world at lower than world 
market prices. With your experience in global commodity 
trading, can you share with us how India's over-subsidization 
impacts U.S. grocers, and are you supportive of a formal 
dispute process to ensure India is compliant with their WTO 
commitments?
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you for the question. I will say, just 
generally, we are supportive of free and fair trade, and the 
mechanisms to get there, to support that type of global 
activity. I would prefer to maybe yield to Ambassador Doud 
about the trade topic specifically from a policy perspective, 
because I think he is better suited to answer the question, or 
we could follow up.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, why don't we follow up at this time, 
since my time has expired.* If we could have those 
communications outside of here, that would be great. I will 
just share that the ambassador from India was--we sat for a 2 
hour breakfast in Cary, North Carolina. We just happened to be 
there at the same time, and he expressed a significant desire 
to improve trade with the United States. So thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p. 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, 
Ms. Crockett, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
of the witnesses today for taking the time to be here. We have 
heard a lot about the importance of paving the way for exports, 
and as a Texan, I get it. In Texas we export more than any 
other state, so believe me when I say I hear you all, we need 
these export programs. I know how important things like FMD and 
MAP are. I also know that, as a freshman, these hearings have 
been so useful for me, getting to hear from people really 
affected by the policies we are debating here in D.C.
    We have had great conversations about many of the titles we 
are reauthorizing in the farm bill, and I am excited to turn 
our attention to Title III. But I hope that we can augment our 
panel today by hearing from the Administrators of the critical 
food, aid, and international exchange programs also housed in 
Title III. These programs not only represent cornerstones of 
developing economies, but also of U.S. foreign policy. They 
represent lifelines to opportunity. These programs are an 
essential part of the farm bill. So, Mr. Chairman, I am 
requesting that we convene another hearing, or even consider a 
listening session abroad, so that we can hear from all Title 
III stakeholders and beneficiaries. But that is for a future 
time. Right now I appreciate all of the witnesses who came here 
today.
    You have already spoken about the need to fund our Market 
Access Program, but I also want to talk about some no-cost 
measures. We are hearing a lot about the difficulty of starting 
a farm today. It is critical that we get new folks into 
farming, which means addressing the considerable barriers to 
entry. Specifically, I want to focus on the trade component. As 
a new farmer, it can be difficult to use these programs to 
access foreign markets. So my first question, for each member 
of this panel, is what is your organization doing to get new 
farmers into the export market, and how can Congress assist 
you?
    Mr. Lantz. Thank you for the question. I work with many 
different agricultural groups, and most of those are 
commissions or boards, and typically they have growers or 
farmers who are part of those, and then they have trade 
committees. And they can join these trade committees, and I 
report to a lot of them on what the opportunities are. So that 
is incredibly important, is first knowing the lay of the land, 
and where they can possibly export. From there, these 
organizations provide assistance. They provide trade leads, 
where somebody might, from Taiwan, say, hey, we are looking for 
this product that these commissions represent. They will put 
out a trade lead, and then they will try to assist them. The 
Market Access Program, these other programs that we have been 
mentioning, are all educational programs to help folks learn 
how to export if they are a new farmer.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you. It doesn't sound like we have 
really got that direct line, though, where we are really doing 
anything specifically. And I bring this up because, once again, 
Texas is kind of a leading area for farmers of everything. We 
do everything in Texas, and we do it bigger. But nevertheless, 
I was encouraged to hear from so many folk that have been doing 
this kind of as a generational kind of family thing, but then 
there are new people, and we are trying to encourage them.
    But I do want to make sure that they understand, as quickly 
as possible, that they do have access to these programs, and so 
I would hope that we could assist you better just making sure 
that those people that we are really--the people that want to 
become farmers have what they need up front to make sure that 
they are going to be successful. And honestly, specifically in 
Texas, we definitely need to make sure they have access to 
being able to export.
    So, with that, we grow lots of things, but I am going to 
talk about corn for a second. And so we just heard from the 
Chairman about--basically the issue as it relates to Mexico, 
right? And so I am wanting to know from you all what steps--or 
what can we do to help out as it relates to making sure that 
producers, farmers, all people that would be affected by the 
negotiations are in the loop with what is going on. Because 
these are people that need to make sure that they are making 
their planting decisions in a timely manner, and so a lot of 
them are communicating that they just kind of feel like they 
are out of the loop, and just waiting on someone to tell them 
something.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you for that--the question, 
Congresswoman. At that--CHS, we provide a lot of services 
directly to farmers. I will give you an example of our CHS 
hedging business, where we do the farm consulting services to 
advise farmers on not only the current state of markets, but 
also in risk management strategies, and how they participate in 
these markets in the most efficient and effective way to manage 
risk on the farm. It is particularly helpful educational 
services for new farmers, and through those type of 
communications and connections that we have directly to 
farmers, I think they are able to get the kind of information 
that they need to make the decision that you are talking about.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, 
Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
witnesses, for being here and sharing your perspective about 
the agricultural industry, which I think is extremely 
important. But, I have always maintained the idea that the 
demand for U.S. commodities and products are really because our 
farmers and ranchers are able to produce such quality products, 
and we have the ability to logistically deliver that to 
anywhere in the world, including protein. And as Ambassador 
Doud mentioned, the greatest opportunity ahead may be in the 
ability to grow and export protein, all types of protein, meat, 
dairy, plant-based, and get it around the world. So, with that 
preface, I want to start my questioning with Mr. Doud.
    Ambassador Doud, you helped negotiate the Phase One China 
agreement, which expired at the end of 2021. China's an 
important market for U.S. agriculture and is the number one 
export market for U.S. soybeans. In Marketing Year 2021 China 
imported 31.7 million metric tons of soybeans. In comparison, 
Mexico and the European Union are U.S. soy's next two largest 
trading partners, and for that same marketing year, Mexico 
imported 4.9, and the EU 4.2. So diversification of the market, 
and many of you made reference to that, has been occurring, but 
the sheer scale of the Chinese market is hard to replicate. So 
my question is this. Given the importance of the Chinese market 
to the U.S. soy and other agricultural commodities, and 
recognizing the variety of issues facing the U.S. Government 
when dealing with Beijing, how would you advise this 
Administration, and this Committee, to engage in the dialogue 
with China?
    Mr. Doud. Congressman, that is a great question, and there 
are several facets to this. Context, China imported $235 
billion worth of food from the world last year. That compares 
to total U.S. ag exports to the world of $196 billion. These 
are the two biggest food traders on Planet Earth. We have to 
have a dialogue. In the year 2019 I spent 33 negotiating 
sessions, hundreds of hours, a year of my life, negotiating 
some 57 structural changes and provisions with China in 
agriculture. Today about 54 or five of those are fixed, 
complete, and that has allowed us to take U.S. ag exports from 
what was $26 billion to $38 billion. It wasn't the 40 that we 
had in the agreement, and it wasn't too bad at the end of the 
day, and we are still making progress.
    By the way, while we were doing that, African Swine Fever 
hit in China. They lost 40 percent of their hogs. What we 
didn't anticipate because of that is now China is the world's 
largest corn importing nation by a country mile, providing a 
huge opportunity, to your point, in this relationship between 
protein, and corn, and soybeans. My final point is this, we 
have to continue to have a dialogue between the Chinese people 
in China and the U.S. when it comes to food and agriculture. It 
is absolutely paramount.
    Mr. Baird. It is very hard to replicate the number of 
people in China, and we need to consume all the products we 
grow every year, and that takes a lot of mouths, so I 
appreciate your perspective on that.
    I am going to turn to all the witnesses with this question, 
and we have about a minute six or so. So we have made reference 
to the farm bill, 2023 Farm Bill, so what improvements can be 
made in Title III, the trade title, to best support our U.S. 
farmers and ranchers in the global marketplace? And I want to 
give all of you an opportunity to respond to that. But we have 
only got 45 seconds too, so----
    Mr. Lantz. I will go quickly. With a return of $25 to $1, 
how many dollars do you want to put into that program? How much 
do you want to invest in it? FMD and MAP.
    Mr. Baird. Good point.
    Mr. Lantz. MAP.
    Ms. Stevermer. Comprehensive trade agreements. We sell more 
pork to the 20 countries that we have those agreements with 
than all the rest of them combined.
    Mr. Griffith. As I said in my testimony, the MAP and FMD 
programs, and increasing funding for programs like that.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. I want to now recognize the gentleman from 
Illinois, Mr. Jackson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you very much, for the witnesses that have come before us 
today. And I am proud to say I come from the great State of 
Illinois, and of course you know this question is about corn. 
So we are exporting--roughly 60 percent of our annual crop is 
destined for overseas. There is a heightened tension now with 
China, of course, and I would like to know, in your opinion--
this is probably first directed to Mr. Griffith--where should 
the U.S. look, outside of China, to open new markets if we have 
continuing tensions and potential trade restriction with China?
    Mr. Griffith. Congressman, thank you for the question. And 
I will highlight back to what Ambassador Doud just said about 
the importance of China, and some of the statistics that had 
been said in this conference around the continuation and the 
importance of trade with China, as well as diversifying away 
from China. Key areas of the world that are the most typically 
talked about and focused on by policymakers and private-sector 
participants, like CHS, would be Southeast Asia, Middle East, 
and Africa. Those are areas that we focus on every day. We are 
focused on diversifying where we take product, and it is just 
difficult, given the numbers that have been stated about China, 
to make a significant move, but it is important that we are 
consistent and diligent in that pursuit.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. And to the Honorable Mr. 
Doud, of course, Illinois, once again, is a grain exporting 
state. As you are well aware, the USDA MAP and the FMD programs 
provide cost-share funding so organizations can help maintain 
and develop foreign markets for our products around the world. 
How important are exports to the grain industry, and I would 
like to know, are we keeping pace with our competitors in this 
area?
    Mr. Doud. Thank you, Congressman, it is a great question. 
My first job out of college was with U.S. Wheat Associates. 
That is the cooperator in wheat. Half of U.S. wheat is 
exported, half of it goes off to the Pacific Northwest, and 
Portland. And the answer--are we keeping up? And the answer is 
no, we are not keeping up with our competitors, in terms of 
trade agreements, and we are not keeping up, in terms of our 
ability to promote our products using the FMD Program--which, 
by the way, helps keep overseas offices open for all our 
cooperator programs--and the Market Access Program, which helps 
bring folks from overseas, our customers, to this country, to 
see our regulatory system and how it works.
    You see, Congressman, in my experience, most other 
regulators around the world see our regulatory system as if it 
is their own. They think that we do things the same way they 
do. And so spending money to bring these folks over to our 
country, to let them see how we do it, is of enormous value in 
building the relationship, but also opening markets.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And would you say that our current 
program is under-funded?
    Mr. Doud. I would say that it has got some work to do, Mr. 
Congressman.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Any proposals, solutions, that you 
would recommend?
    Mr. Doud. Well, again, if the return on that dollar that is 
joint-funded by farmer check-off dollars and taxpayer dollars, 
if you are--every dollar you spend you are getting $25 back, in 
terms of exports, I think that is a pretty good place to spend 
some money.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Excellent. And one last comment 
that I would just make, I think it is important for the 
Agriculture Committee to note, and industry in general, is that 
we talk about the African Trade Growth Initiative. This was the 
first time in American history that America had a trade policy, 
non-human, if you will, with Africa. We had not considered a 
trade program with the continent before. So as we look at this 
anew, I hope that we embrace trade agreements. I have long 
advocated that we go beyond looking at the G20, to even looking 
at the G21. There should be a representative from the Continent 
of Africa, which in the next 20 years will have almost 15 to 20 
percent of the world's population on the continent, so we can 
redirect our focus on expanding trade opportunities for our 
country. I yield my time back.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, 
Mr. Mann, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mann. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this 
important hearing, and for all of our witnesses for being here 
today. I represent the First District of Kansas, and have long 
said that my top three priorities in this farm bill are crop 
insurance, trade, and oversight. Last year, as mentioned, the 
U.S. exported just under $200 billion of ag products. Kansas 
contributed about $6 billion to that. Our products that we 
export out of Kansas are beef and other proteins. Wheat, 
sorghum, corn. Goes to nearly 194 markets around the world. 
Considering those numbers, I believe Congress must think 
critically and carefully about trade, and trade promotion, 
especially as we reauthorize this farm bill.
    I am proud, and this has come up a couple times, of MAP and 
FMD. That is why I co-led the Agriculture Export Promotion Act 
of 2023 (H.R. 648) in this Congress. This legislation would 
allocate additional resources to MAP and FMD, which we have to 
remind everybody we have not increased these numbers since 
2002, so it is way over time, and given the return on 
investments that we are talking about that we had more money 
there, and I would like to get that incorporated into this farm 
bill.
    A handful of questions, first for you, Mr. Griffith. You 
mentioned in your testimony about Vietnam being a success story 
of increasing our trade relationship through these programs. 
Any other success stories come to mind that you can think of as 
we have benefitted from these programs?
    Mr. Griffith. I don't know if I have another specific one, 
but I would just generally say, given how dynamic the global 
market is, and the needs to have access to markets that move 
from places of surplus to deficit, and how that changes 
constantly, as I said, a diligent and continuous focus and 
funding in this area. We never know when we are going to have 
those success stories, or where they are going to be, but we 
need to have frameworks in place and agreements in place that 
allow for that to happen in time of need.
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Great. Again, I just wanted to--my takeaways 
from this hearing is just we have to be focused on increasing 
MAP and FMD, given the return on investment, and if we don't do 
it, it is not going to happen, and we are leaving trade dollars 
on the table for our ag producers. Incredibly important.
    Next couple of questions are for you, Ambassador Doud. 
Great being with you last week in our home State of Kansas. 
Great meeting your dad last week, great seeing your son here 
today. My question for you, first one, we know that a lack of 
effective cold storage, or the inability to distribute on a 
country's receiving end as we export are major barriers to 
expanding and diversifying our export markets. Can you share 
your thoughts on the importance of building out cold chain 
capacity, and help us identify any areas in the farm bill that 
we could help to potentially meet this need?
    Mr. Doud. Thank you, Congressman. It is a great question, 
and the first point, I think, to make is where the U.S. really 
excels, where our advantage is, is in value-added agricultural 
exports. Pork, beef, poultry, dairy, that is a value-added 
export. But in order to do that, you have to have cold chain 
technology. We have done well in exports to CAFTA-DR, but we 
need help, in terms of infrastructure, to expand that. We talk 
about the Indo-Pacific Partnership, and it is tragic that we 
are not going to talk about tariffs and market access, but I 
think cold chain technology and infrastructure, in the context 
of that, would be a fantastic conversation. We have talked 
about Africa. Goodness knows we need to have more 
infrastructure and cold chain technology in that part of the 
world as well. So I think that is an enormously important 
question.
    Mr. Mann. I appreciated your comments, and when we talk 
value-added agriculture, we have to remember, when we export 
our proteins our commodity producers benefit greatly from that. 
It trickles down. Let us add the value here, and then let us 
figure out ways to improve cold storage over there to help rise 
the waters, so to speak, for all the boats on the pond.
    Second question for you, Ambassador Doud, and this actually 
was a question the Chairman had asked to Mr. Griffith, but it 
was on my list for you as well, so we will let you answer the 
question, Ambassador, and this has to do with India and the WTO 
subsidies, and that issue with their wheat and rice farmers, 
where their subsidizing them far exceeds the limits. I have 
been working a lot with Representative Crawford. We have been 
leading efforts to urge USTR and the White House to engage in a 
formal dispute process to ensure that India is compliant with 
its WTO commitments. Ambassador, are you in favor of a formal 
dispute process, and if so, can you speak to its benefit? And 
if not, why not?
    Mr. Doud. Congressman, it is a great question, and I think, 
in answer, is it is time. When I was in the Administration, my 
first trip to the WTO in Geneva, I was the guy that slid the 
first ever counter-notifications across the table to my Indian 
counterpart there in Geneva about rice, and wheat, and their 
subsidies. There is a reason India is the largest rice exporter 
in the world. There is a reason they are now exporting wheat. 
It is their subsidies. And they are so far beyond what is their 
ability to do under their Uruguay Round agreement. It is time 
to address it.
    Mr. Mann. And I think far past time we stood up for our 
American ag producers in so doing. So I know I have gone past 
my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you all for being here.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
Ms. Brown, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 
Hayes. Mr. Chairman, our panel of experts is here to talk about 
something very important, agriculture trade, but before I get 
to that, with this being our first meeting in the Subcommittee 
on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture, I would be 
remiss not to mention that we should be discussing how House 
Republicans continue to weaponize the debt ceiling by proposing 
food-insecure Americans pay for their tax cuts.
    The Republican debt bill that passed by just one vote in 
the House increases the number of people whose benefits are 
susceptible to SNAP's punitive time limit by extending the 
limit to older adults, ages 50 through 55. Now, this 5 year age 
bump may not seem like a lot, but, according to the Center on 
Budget Policy and Priorities, it would put nearly one million 
SNAP recipients at risk of losing their benefits. It is 
unfathomable that I even have to say this, but taking food from 
people does not help them find work. It just makes them hungry. 
It has been a longstanding bipartisan practice that legislating 
SNAP and our nation's nutrition policy belongs in the farm bill 
and in this Committee. To open the farm bill for reckless 
partisan politics is offensive to the contemplative work that 
we conduct in this Committee.
    So, back to the subject at hand. As my colleagues have 
mentioned, food security is a matter of national security. 
American farmers play a pivotal role in exporting products 
around the world. Much of this work falls under the support of 
the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. So, Mr. Doud, you have 
described in your testimony how various trade barriers have 
been resolved due to the work of government officials at the 
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Two questions. Can you give 
an example of one of those success stories, and, in your 
opinion, what could be done in the next farm bill to support 
the FAS?
    Mr. Doud. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is the first thing I 
have to say is that the company that I work for today, these 
are military guys, West Point guys. It is actually the mantra 
of our company, food security is national security, so I 
appreciate you saying that. That is what we talk about every 
day, and what I do now.
    In terms of examples, there are so many little things. When 
I went to Brazil, we got a tariff change with Brazil on wheat. 
We had been working on that one for 25 years. We--when--
geographic indicators, and things we included in USMCA to kind 
of keep the Europeans from using that as a non-tariff trade 
barrier all around the world. There are all these little 
nuggets, whether it is--I don't--that you can utilize. You kind 
of caught me off guard here to think of 100 of them, but the 
folks that do this are the best--the--it was my honor of a 
lifetime to work with these folks in government, regardless of 
politics and Administration in agriculture, you have the best 
folks on Earth working on this stuff.
    Ms. Brown. Excellent. And so, again, in your opinion, what 
could be done in the next farm bill to support the FAS?
    Mr. Doud. Well, I think, as we have described here, FMD and 
MAP, TASC Programs, I think are--that is where it is at, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Brown. All right. Well, thank you for sharing your 
story, and your feedback. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Miller, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ohio ranks 
number nine in the nation in number of farm operations, with 
international trade being critical. However, it is concerning 
that USDA's recent outlook for agricultural trade anticipates 
exports for all major commodity groups to be reduced, with the 
decreases projected for corn, soybeans, dairy, and livestock. 
Preserving and expanding international trade is paramount, as 
soybeans are the top agricultural export for Ohio, and the 
United States, with more than half of our soybean crop exported 
overseas. Mexico is one of the largest destinations for United 
States corn exports, with $4.92 billion in trade. However, 
these commitments made under the USMCA must be upheld, 
including access for biotech corn, and I will be leading a 
letter with my colleagues to USTR in that regard.
    Ohio ranks seventh in the nation in pork production, and 
with 25 percent of pork goods exported, yet threats relating to 
foreign animal diseases are a constant concern. Finally, for 
dairy, enforcement of dairy market access obligations under the 
USMCA is absolutely vital. Ohio State economists have summed it 
up as agricultural functions in a global market, with many 
factors influencing income and expenses. Ohio farmers must 
remain aware of global forces impacting markets.
    To any of the witnesses, given these trade challenges, how 
can we best advance science-based trade policies, essential to 
food security, and be vigilant in enforcement of trade 
commitments as to not cause economic harm to United States 
farmers? Any takers?
    Mr. Lantz. Thank you, Congressman. I will take that. I 
absolutely agree. Science-based trade policy is crucial. I work 
with the fruit and vegetable industry, and we export our 
products all over the world, and are continually challenged by 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Some of those are just 
straight up political measures. Some of them are different 
perspectives on science. Using the Codex system, the Codex 
committees, gathering support from our trading partners who are 
like-minded, all play a critical role in ensuring that sound 
science is used with U.S. agricultural exports.
    And then there are cases where it needs to just simply be 
challenged. Through trade agreements like USMCA, through the 
World Trade Organization. There are some times where we just 
cannot reach an agreement, and you need to have a dispute 
settlement to try to figure things out. But I am absolutely in 
agreement that science is important. We lead in science and 
agriculture, and we need to continue to support that in order 
to keep our exports moving. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you. This question will be for 
Mr. Griffith or Mr. Doud. We must be vigilant to hold our 
trading partners accountable for obligations made under the 
USMCA. Mexico's position on biotech corn is creating 
uncertainty, and, in your opinion, how can the United States 
trade officials most effectively take action with our Mexican 
counterparts to eliminate trade barriers that could negatively 
impact American corn producers?
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. My 
comment, from a NAEGA perspective, the view--the utilization of 
technology, such as biotechnology, to produce safe and abundant 
food supplies, grains and other agricultural goods, is 
essential. We believe the best way to facilitate trade is with 
reliance on sound science underpinning all regulation. I think 
it is important for us, as the U.S., to lead on science-based 
measures so other countries don't make the rules. NAEGA does 
not object to the USTR dispute resolution case, and hopes that 
the resolution can be found, but NAEGA does not have any doubt 
that the U.S. would maintain a logistical advantage in the 
delivery of corn to Mexico, no matter the type of seed.
    Mr. Miller of Ohio. Yes. And what Mexico is doing, it is 
more of a protectionist revision than it is in science-based 
evidence, and I know we have heard a lot of that today. And 
when we met with one of the USTR Trade Reps, in terms of, I had 
asked a specific question, how are you going to hold these 
individuals accountable? What is your framework, what is your 
strategy? Even if you bring them to a panel, are they going to 
agree? And if they do agree, are you still going to hold them 
accountable? Because, just a couple of years ago, 2\1/2\ years 
ago, or whenever it was put in place, they made the agreement, 
and they have negated the agreement, both Mexico and Canada, so 
I have concerns with this Administration actually pushing 
forward, and holding these other countries accountable, even if 
it does go to a dispute panel, and that is where my concern 
lies. And I did not get an answer, I had no framework. All I 
was told is, I cannot divulge this strategy. But I thank you 
very much for your time, all of the witnesses, and thank you 
for your answers. I yield back.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Hawaii, 
Ms. Tokuda, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. Tokuda, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. No 
problem. Distinguished panel, thank you for your testimony 
today. I just returned from a week traveling throughout 
Hawaii's Second Congressional District, five islands in 5 days, 
and met with agriculture ranchers, producers, farmers, and 
stakeholders throughout our state. Something that was raised 
multiple times was the dumping of foreign agricultural 
products, like beef, in our local markets, at price points 
local producers have not been able to compete with. While we 
want to reduce the cost of food for our constituents, I have 
concerns that foreign imports that are well below what we are 
able to produce it for locally could lead us to growing less of 
our own food, which at the end of the day could be a national 
security concern as well.
    Hawaii used to produce a good amount of the beef that we 
consume on island, and now it is far less than ten percent. For 
the panel, what can we do in this farm bill to help encourage 
and help domestic producers compete with foreign imports, and 
address the dumping of agricultural products in the United 
States? And I will add that we do know, as a result of 
diversification of U.S. consumption and demand for a variety of 
foods, literally since 1997 until 2022 we have seen the amount 
of imported agricultural goods quintuple in value, reaching, I 
believe, $198 billion in 2022 alone. So this is not just a 
Hawaii problem, it is a national problem. So your thoughts on 
this? Anyone?
    Mr. Doud. The buck is getting passed to me a lot here 
today. Congresswoman, it is a really difficult question, 
because we are in a situation right now with beef that--because 
we have had droughts all over the U.S., our beef prices are 
high. In Australia, they have had their share of drought, but 
because of La Nina, they have had a lot of rain, so now their 
production is coming back online. So, the situation with 
weather, and the long-term cycles of beef, are a huge problem.
    That is--your question is a good one, and the answer to 
that typically is to work with the International Trade 
Commission, and USTR, to look into remedies for those types of 
situations.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. And I would argue too, though, that 
it is not just beef, unfortunately. We are finding macadamia 
nuts, other specialty crops as well, finding significant import 
into our markets now, and impacting our local grows and 
farmers, so I think this is a vulnerability we face across 
commodities and specialty crops that we really need to take a 
good look at.
    I want to piggyback a little bit off my last question to 
discuss country-of-origin labeling, another issue that did come 
up as I made my way throughout our islands. While country-of-
origin labeling requires retailers, such as full line grocery 
stores, supermarkets, club warehouse stores, to notify their 
customers with information regarding the source of certain 
foods, the U.S. still trails Europe in terms of protecting the 
standards of identity of certain products and locations. 
Toblerone recently had to change its label because of Swiss 
law, and Miller High Life's model, the champagne of beers, as 
we know, led to destroyed product.
    However, products taking advantage of the whole e-brand are 
pervasive. Coffee that contains merely ten percent of Kona 
coffee can be labeled Kona coffee. Many of the mac nuts that we 
enjoy today are actually from Africa, not actually from Hawaii. 
How do you feel about having stronger country-of-origin 
labeling in the United States? Anyone?
    Mr. Lantz. I think there are a variety of opinions among 
different industries on that, and so I am not really qualified 
to speak on how the different industries feel on the position. 
There are industries that have very--such as the groups in 
Hawaii, who have very strong feelings. They grow, they want to 
make sure that their industry is known for that. And then there 
are other industries who want to be able to grow and sell their 
products using different--so I don't think there is a unified 
position on country-of-origin labeling, at least in our 
industry--or--I the horticultural industry.
    Ms. Tokuda. Anyone else want to comment on this?
    Mr. Griffith. This is not an area that CHS is involved in 
and doesn't have a policy on country-of-origin labeling.
    Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Thank you. Well, we will go on, but I do 
believe that there are many specialty crops that are grown 
throughout our country in which they pride themselves on brand, 
and in geography as well, and I think, as much as other 
countries are protecting theirs, I think we need to do the same 
for ours here in the United States as well.
    Really quickly, we may not have time to go into this, but I 
wanted to touch upon agriculture technology. Because we 
predominantly grow specialty crops, smaller farms, in Hawaii, 
ag tech, like large tractors, is not practical for a majority 
of farmers in Hawaii. We have to have everything barged in, 
which is a high cost, in terms of inputs for our farmers and 
growers. There is a lot of interest in importing ag tech from 
Japan and other countries in Asia. Our legislature recently 
approved funds to actually look towards this innovation, and--
we do know, though, that there are many issues regarding EPA 
emissions standards compliance. And so I would hope, with the 
time I know is over now, that we would be able to discuss how 
perhaps the United States could assist in the importation of 
this ag technology for the benefit of our smaller- to medium-
sized farmers and growers here in the United States. So thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, 
Ms. De La Cruz, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for 
hosting this Committee, and this hearing today, and thank you 
to our witnesses. Our relationship with Mexico is vital to our 
Texas farmers. I live in south Texas, and so this is a 
community that I am especially close to. That being said, I 
know that Congressman Miller talked a little bit about Mexico's 
banning of the imports on the genetically modified corn, and 
that is, of course, of great interest and concern for our 
farmers.
    So I just wanted to put it on your radar that in February, 
myself, along with some of our fellow Texans, wrote a letter 
commending the USTR and USDA for their rejection of the Mexican 
Government's proposal to ban U.S. imports of genetically 
modified corn for food production. And so the letter stressed 
the importance of the need to uphold the integrity of the USMCA 
and take forceful action. And so I just wanted to make sure 
that I am on record stating that.
    Now, on a separate topic, as you probably all know, the 
Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development 
Program have proven popular with agricultural industry and 
offer valuable support to the U.S. economy. An independent 
study recently found that for every dollar invested into these 
specific programs, a return of $24.50 is realized. So my 
question is can you share with us how these programs have been 
utilized to build foreign markets for agriculture products, and 
do you have any suggestions for us to improve on these programs 
as we write the upcoming farm bill?
    Ms. Stevermer. I think I am the only one that hasn't 
answered that yet. Those are good programs. In fact, I was just 
in Mexico City earlier this week on a Trade Committee meeting 
and had lunch with a couple of individuals that work for a 
small company that does sausage products in Mexico, and those 
type of funds are being used in those situations. And they 
talked about the high quality pork that comes to them from the 
United States, and how they really appreciate that. And they 
said, ``If we have access to dollars, or more dollars to 
promote pork, our products, in Mexico here, that means we buy 
more pork from you.'' I think that is a success and a win for 
all of us.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Excellent. So would your suggestion be to 
increase funding, then?
    Ms. Stevermer. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Excellent. More dollars, right? Now, Mr. 
Lantz, as you know, the TASC Program provides funding for 
projects that address these existing and potential sanitary and 
technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of our 
specialty crops. Can you just walk us through some of the 
benefits of this program? I know you have answered some 
questions like this previously, but I would like for you just 
to go through it for us.
    Mr. Lantz. Yes. TASC is crucial. Without TASC, the trade 
barriers that unexpectedly come up in the specialty crop 
industry are very difficult to overcome. We have set budgets, 
and all of a sudden there is an unexpected challenge in a 
foreign market. TASC is used immediately to try to address 
those challenges. Let me give you an example. I was recently in 
Bangkok, and I was approached by an apple farmer who said, how 
come I can't export to Thailand? I used to be able to export to 
Thailand. The West Coast still can, but Pennsylvania, Michigan, 
New York cannot export. And so that industry has applied for a 
TASC grant to engage with the Thai Government so we can reopen 
the market. An unexpected issue that came up, TASC will be used 
to reopen the market.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much. And with that, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. I now want to recognize yet another Member 
from Texas, Mr. Casar, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, sir. Proud to represent Texas today. 
I want to talk about Cuba, the embargo, farmers, food, and 
immigration. Cuba is facing its worst economic crisis in 
decades, resulting in dire shortages of essential goods like 
food, medicine, and sanitary products. These conditions have 
caused a record number of Cubans to flee out of dire necessity.
    The Cuban Government bears responsibility, but we also know 
the crisis has been made worse by U.S. sanctions and the 
embargo against Cuba, which for 60 years has crippled trade and 
financial transactions between our two countries that are so 
close geographically. And in those 60 years, these sanctions 
and the embargo have not resulted in the sweeping shift towards 
democracy in Cuba that we would like to see. But current 
economic conditions have compelled folks to flee. And, as we 
know, folks fearmonger about migrants at the border. We know 
that more often than not migrants are seeking refuge out of 
necessity, and we should be revisiting our policies that push 
people out of their home countries when they want to stay at 
home.
    The embargo doesn't just come at a cost for everyday 
Cubans. The embargo also comes at a cost for Americans, because 
before the embargo, Cuba was the ninth largest export market 
for U.S. farm products. Today it has fallen below 50th on that 
list. American farmers that I have spoken with want to export 
to Cuba but can't because our policies, despite allowing food 
exports, deny credit in Cuba. That means U.S. producers can 
export agricultural commodities to Cuba, but they must do so on 
a cash for a crop basis. So Cubans are forced to buy ag 
products at a higher cost from countries across the ocean, like 
countries in the EU, that provide credit.
    Mr. Griffith, your organization, the North American Export 
Grain Association, is part of the United States Agricultural 
Coalition for Cuba. Can you talk about why your organization or 
others support opening up Cuba for more exports?
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
Markets like Cuba, that are 90 miles off the coast of Florida, 
near-in markets in general to U.S. agriculture producers, are 
extremely interesting to our producers. With the rising costs 
of transportation, we are in favor of market access and free 
and fair trade to places like Cuba, and other areas. So I think 
it comes into more of a broader policy topic.
    Mr. Casar. Absolutely. Thank you. Ambassador, any comments 
on what impact you think opening up Cuba might have for U.S. 
farmers and for exports?
    Mr. Doud. Congressman, I think that the market is open, and 
I think that it is difficult, at least for me personally, in my 
own personal aspect, to justify loaning Cuba money.
    Mr. Casar. If you think the market is open, then why is it 
that they are buying so much of their agricultural products 
from the European Union? Why have they gone from ninth to 50th 
on our market for food products in ag?
    Mr. Doud. Well, I think it is largely a function of what we 
are talking about here in credit, but also, just the complete 
failure of the--or, excuse me, Cuban economy.
    Mr. Casar. At the end of the day, the Cuban economy, and, 
as I mentioned, the Cuban Government, bears significant 
responsibility for what is happening there. We should be 
pushing, and continue to push, for democracy there, and all 
over the world. But today I think it is important for us to 
reflect on whether the past 60 years of policy are continuing 
to yield the level of benefit that we want for the American 
people, and it is way more expensive for us to deal with this 
here, when it meets us at our border, rather than creating the 
opportunity for people to stay at home, to be able to live in 
the communities they want to live in. I don't think that it 
serves us to be starving people abroad. I think that it helps 
Americans for us to be feeding people all over the world. Thank 
you so much, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Van Orden for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before we get 
started here, I have just got to say that I take umbrage with a 
few comments that were made earlier. To every one of my 
colleagues, I was raised in abject rural poverty by a single 
mother. I was on what were actually food stamps at the time, so 
G.T. doesn't get mad. I had subsidized school lunches, I ate 
government cheese. I am a Member of Congress because of some of 
these programs. And I would remind everyone that the State of 
Wisconsin just voted 80 percent for work requirements for these 
types of programs. I don't believe that the fearmongering with 
those in most need by playing partisan politics with 
disingenuous talking points, I think that is neither productive 
or appropriate for this Committee, and that should stop.
    Mr. Lantz, I represent Wisconsin's Third Congressional 
District, and as you know, Wisconsin is the number one producer 
of cranberries in the world. We produce over half of the 
world's cranberries. And it is correct, that is a fact. What 
Wisconsin has is cranberries, Massachusetts has marketing, just 
to make that clear for my colleagues. I am very concerned about 
the issue with the minimum residue levels, particularly with 
the European Union, and they appear to be using these to 
manipulate a market and are starting to, or in the future will 
be excluding our products, particularly our cranberry growers, 
from being able to access that market.
    With that said, in your testimony you said that the USTR, 
or USDA, FAS, and our embassies around the world are working to 
ensure that U.S. agriculture is not hindered by these complex 
practices. Now, are you satisfied that the Biden Administration 
is taking the appropriate efforts to make sure the European 
Union, and as referenced earlier, China and India, are not 
eating our proverbial lunch?
    Mr. Lantz. Thank you. Excellent question, and I love 
cranberries.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you. You are welcome anytime.
    Mr. Lantz. And I work with a lot of Wisconsin cranberry 
growers. I think the MRL situation is the driest, very 
difficult to understand, but one of the most crucial challenges 
facing all agriculture, not just for specialty crops these 
differing standards. And I would advocate for the continued 
expanded engagement on this issue. And how that happens is 
through finding like-minded trading partners. I have talked to 
Ecuadorian banana growers. I have talked to South African 
citrus growers. Everyone has had an issue with the European 
Union's policies.
    Mr. Van Orden. Right.
    Mr. Lantz. And those need to be addressed in the World 
Trade Organization, and watching Codex to make sure the Codex 
standards remains strong as well. So, yes, I agree.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, sir. And that leads to Mr. 
Ambassador. What is your level of confidence in the World Trade 
Organization to be a neutral arbiter when dealing with China, 
India, and the European Union?
    Mr. Doud. Well, the great challenge that we have at the WTO 
is you have to have consensus, and so any one of these 
countries can vote in the negative, and that blows the whole 
possibility of making any progress up.
    Mr. Van Orden. Try being in Congress.
    Mr. Doud. So the answer is, to your point, there is large 
consensus on so many of these issues, in terms of global trade 
and agriculture. So is there a better way to do this that we 
can make progress, even though you may have one country that 
doesn't want to do this, for the betterment of the planet, and 
the challenges--that is the process that we have to figure out 
how to develop going forward. We can't let one country stand in 
the way of making progress when it comes to technology and 
agriculture.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. And then I want to echo some of the 
comments of my colleague, Mr. Jackson from Illinois. You advise 
firms concerning the trends for 5, 15, and 20 years out. Are 
you advising them currently to be conducting contingency 
planning operations in case of dramatically reduced or halted 
trade into the Indo-Pacific region due to increased tensions or 
a hot war with China?
    Mr. Doud. No, not at the moment, sir. But I think what we 
do work with companies every day on are contingencies in supply 
chains in agriculture. I think that is a critically important 
conversation. We learned some valuable lessons in COVID, and I 
think those lessons can be applied across the board when it 
comes to this industry.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Ambassador, I would respectfully 
encourage you to start having those conversations.
    Mr. Doud. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. All right. Thank you very much. Got to yield 
back.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from 
Colorado, Ms. Caraveo, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Finstad, and to Ranking 
Member Hayes also, for hosting this hearing this morning, and 
thank you to our panel for being here to provide your 
testimony. Growers in Colorado sell nearly 1.5 billion pounds 
of fresh potatoes annually, 90 percent of which goes to the 
fresh market. At the moment, though, Japan, who we are already 
shipping chip potatoes to, presents the opportunity of becoming 
a massive market for U.S. fresh potato exports. Opening this 
market would allow potentially a 10 to 15 percent increase in 
U.S. fresh potato exports, however, negotiations with Japan and 
the USDA seem to have been delayed indefinitely. So, Mr. Lantz, 
can you speak to how we might be able to work with Japan to 
open fresh potato markets for our domestic potato growers, and 
how this market opportunity might benefit them?
    Mr. Lantz. I spend a lot of time on this issue. I took 
Japanese officials to a potato farm in August. It is time. This 
is one of the potato industry's highest priorities. We are 
seeking to open this market so our potatoes can end up in 
grocery stores throughout Japan. We ship our potatoes 
throughout Asia, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Southeast Asia. It 
is time to open the Japanese market. If we open that market, we 
expect $150 million in sales, similar to what we are expecting 
in Mexico, and it would help change the face of the U.S. potato 
industry. Colorado currently has access to chipping potatoes, 
but all of the U.S. needs access for table stock potatoes.
    I know that there will be negotiations on this coming up in 
the fall, and I know that Secretary Vilsack recently raised 
this issue when he was in Japan, so we are pleased to see that 
this issue is getting the traction it needs.
    Ms. Caraveo. Well, I thank you for your work on it, and 
Secretary Vilsack as well for pushing these negotiations. I 
know most people may not realize that Colorado is such a big 
potato producing state, but we certainly are, and so I thank 
you for that.
    To pivot, traveling through my district, I have had great 
opportunities to see the latest innovations of our agriculture 
producers that they are bringing to their farms. From hearing 
about automated dairy installations and watching laser weeders 
in action. So, for Ambassador Doud, how can we work with other 
countries in developing and testing innovations in agricultural 
technologies?
    Mr. Doud. That is a great question, and I think the best 
thing that we can do is bring overseas regulators, these 
regulatory agencies from other countries, to the United States 
to meet with our regulatory agencies, and furthermore, get out 
in the country and see how we do it. And that is what we are 
talking about with the Market Access Program in particular. 
Seeing is believing.
    Congresswoman, I personally took the Trade Minister of 
Indonesia out to your part of the world when I was Chief Ag 
Negotiator, and we had a conversation about apples. He was so 
impressed with our discussions that a few weeks later he came 
back with his entire regulatory team, and he took them on the 
tour, to show them, look, this is how the U.S. does this. This 
is not how it is done in other parts of the world, and we 
should let U.S. apples into Indonesia, and it worked. Seeing is 
believing sometimes in these discussions, and that is how we 
get that done, is through the MAP Program.
    Ms. Caraveo. I certainly agree that more people need to be 
seeing these producers in action, and so I thank you very much 
for that. And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. All right. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Finstad, and Ranking Member 
Hayes, for holding the hearing today, and thanks to our 
witnesses for bearing with us. Looks like I might be it, unless 
somebody comes in. Okay. After limited access to Canada's dairy 
market was granted to U.S. producers via USMCA, accusations 
were levied by the U.S. that Canada has allocated their tariff 
quotas overwhelmingly to the dairy processing sector, 
effectively shutting out access to their market. Ambassador 
Doud, I know you are familiar with this problem. Given USTR's 
announcement of a second USMCA dispute panel, are you confident 
that this matter can finally be resolved?
    Mr. Doud. Congressman, this is without a doubt one of the 
most frustrating issues. We have talked about potatoes in 
Japan, we had potatoes in Mexico. This is another one of those 
that is really, really difficult. I want to address this notion 
that sometimes you don't hear much from USTR when it comes to 
enforcement because you are in the middle of a legal 
proceeding, and not much can be said. I want to encourage all 
of you to keep pressure on it when it comes to these issues. 
Whether it comes to Mexico and GMOs, whether it comes to Canada 
and dairy, that is helpful. These enforcement mechanisms are 
critical. It takes time to work through. Sometimes you lose 
patience, I get it, but we have to see this through, and just 
keep everybody's feet to the fire here.
    Mr. Rose. Are there alternative pathways that we should be 
looking at to rectify this issue?
    Mr. Doud. Well, I hope this works. So this is the first 
test case of the new enforcement mechanism in USMCA. As I said 
earlier, an enormous amount of time was worked on by the 
lawyers to try to figure out how to do this the best way we 
can, and--so let us hope this works, and we are able to figure 
this out. But this is a tough one, with Canada and dairy. They 
are--they have always been impossible to deal with.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. Ms. Stevermer, in your written 
testimony you noted a dramatic drop in U.S. pork exports due to 
Taiwan's 2021 food safety labeling that you stated, ``targets 
the United States.'' Your testimony also notes that the 
National Pork Producers Council is urging U.S. negotiators to 
use the existing U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework 
agreement as a mechanism to resolve these market access issues. 
I am a huge supporter of Taiwan, and proud Member of the 
Congressional Taiwan Caucus, and as a supporter of Taiwan, and 
of American pork producers, I would love to see us resolve this 
issue. Is there anything Congress can do to help push the 
office of USTR to prioritize resolving this issue?
    Ms. Stevermer. Well, I appreciate that question, and I 
would say that the comprehensive trade agreements, as we have 
discussed earlier, are those vehicles that allow us to have 
those type of conversations if there is a dispute about tariffs 
or non-tariff factors. So just keep having the conversation and 
keep working to get those comprehensive trade agreements in 
place.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, Ambassador Doud, I would like to 
ask you basically the same question, given your experience as 
the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at USTR. Do you have any 
thoughts on how the USTR can help us resolve this issue?
    Mr. Doud. Congressman, I first discussed this with Taiwan 
when I was a staffer on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry Committee circa 2011, when I took a trip to Taiwan as 
a member of a staff delegation, so this issue has a been a 
tough one for a very long time, like many of these other issues 
in agriculture. This is highly political in Taiwan. This is 
going to take an enormous amount of effort, both on the part of 
any Administration, and USTR, and USDA, but also politically as 
well, in my humble opinion.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. Ambassador Doud, as the Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator during USMCA negotiations, you worked 
to develop a side letter with Mexico on common cheese names. 
These challenges on American producers' ability to use common 
food and beverage names touch multiple markets around the 
world. While the letter in the USMCA set an important precedent 
for the protection of common terms, do you think the language 
should be expanded to include many other common names?
    Mr. Doud. Yes.
    Mr. Rose. Should the language have stronger and more 
proactive measures to counter the European Union's abuse of 
geographical indications?
    Mr. Doud. Yes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. Mr. Griffith, in your testimony you 
discussed the importance of inland waterways as a vital part of 
CHS's supply chain. Tennessee's inland waterways are also a 
vital part of my state's transportation network, however, in my 
opinion, updating inland waterway infrastructure is often a 
challenging task, especially when inland waterway projects are 
competing for funds against other transportation-related 
infrastructure projects. In your testimony you noted that most 
U.S. locks and dams have surpassed their expected 50 year 
design life, increasing delays and unscheduled outages that 
threatened to erode America's competitive infrastructure 
advantage. If you could, for the record, expand on just how 
damaging these delays and unscheduled outages are on our 
ability to export agricultural goods? My time has expired, so I 
will have to yield back. Please respond for the record, if you 
might. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 51.]
    The Chairman. You can submit that to the record, yes. All 
right. So now last, but not least, I recognize the Member from 
North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also to 
Ranking Member Hayes. I do have some questions, and I think all 
of the folks are here to testify. But before I get to my 
questions, I just want to reiterate what Ranking Member Hayes 
had to say in her comments, as well as Congresswoman Brown, 
about hunger, about nutrition. That is the first word in this 
Committee, if you look at it, if you look at the title, but it 
is certainly a personal issue of mine, as I have four Hs that I 
work on, hunger, housing, higher education, and health.
    And I appreciate this hearing on trade, I know I am going 
to learn something. It is well within our jurisdiction, but we 
haven't had a Subcommittee or a full Committee hearing on 
nutrition, and I certainly hope that we are able to do that, 
because the absence is conspicuous to me. Especially as today, 
the end of the public health emergency, means that so many 
people face a hunger cliff, and they are going to be kicked off 
lifesaving pandemic-era benefits that we need to continue to 
work on.
    So let me just raise a couple of questions, and, Mr. Lantz, 
let me go to you first. Thank you for your testimony. The 
issues that you raised about maximum residue limits are well 
taken, and the confusion and the uncertainty they create are 
understandably frustrating, particularly when they result in a 
rejection. Are there opportunities at the farm level for 
reducing residue levels for U.S. crops for export, in addition 
to the important work that USTR, FAS, and our embassies do?
    Mr. Lantz. Yes. It is become every grower's responsibility 
to know where their product could potentially head, and to know 
what those MRLs are. The way they do that is they use the MRL 
database, the Food Chain ID MRL Database, and if they are in 
the United States, the USDA and the EPA combine to fund access 
to that. So many of the grower groups we work with request that 
information, and we will provide what the U.S. standard is, 
what the foreign standard is, and they can make crop protection 
decisions based on that.
    Where they grow frustrated is when something is approved 
for use, they have a pest they need to control, and they find 
they can't use it because a foreign government has set a 
level--a more restrictive level, and then they are told they 
can't use it because there is a risk of a rejection for it.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you. So let me move quickly--all of 
you have at least mentioned, and some have highlighted, the 
importance of the USDA's Market Access Program to developing 
markets in other countries. Every farm bill some stakeholders 
argue that this program puts public dollars toward marketing 
activities that firms like yours would otherwise fund 
themselves. So could you--let me ask Mr. Griffith first--share 
what your industry does with MAP that it could not do without 
the program?
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I 
can only speak to NAEGA's use of MAP funding. The focus of 
NAEGA's work with MAP funds is market access, trade 
facilitation, and stakeholder best practices for educations on 
grains, oilseeds, and their primary products. A key part of 
that effort is science-based regulation and technical education 
that levels the playing field for U.S. exports, and increasing 
funding would allow NAEGA to expand educational programming, 
and meet directly with stakeholders in markets that have just 
begun opening to U.S.----
    Ms. Adams. Okay. So let me ask you, is there another person 
here who would like to at least address that?
    Mr. Lantz. I can talk about a couple different vegetable 
groups that use this.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Mr. Lantz. I was in New Delhi a month ago, and I was 
speaking with the U.S. embassy, and they said it is incredible 
what the U.S. cranberry industry has done with MAP. Previously, 
cranberries were not exported to India. Dried fruits are 
incredibly important during holidays as gifts, and now they are 
using--they are exporting and selling those dried cranberries 
are part of holiday traditions in India. That would not happen 
without the MAP Program.
    Ms. Adams. Okay, great. Well, I have another question. I am 
going to just send it in because I don't want to be rushed. But 
let me just thank you all for being here, thank you for your 
testimony, and thank you for the work that you do. I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And I too want to say thank you so 
much for all of you, for your patience, and willingness, and 
really just bringing your expertise to the table here. And it 
is so important that we operate with a strong amount of 
humility to understand that there are areas where we definitely 
don't know at all, so thank you for bringing that expertise. 
Before we adjourn today, I invite the Ranking Member to share 
any closing comments that she may have.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you again to our witnesses for joining us 
here today. We appreciate your time, and expertise, and your 
willingness to share with this Congress. As we move into farm 
bill negotiations, it is vital that we remember how important 
trade is for our producers. The Title III programs are 
foundational to ensuring and improving access to foreign 
markets, and our producers need these markets to be accessible 
for our country. Maintaining good relationships with our trade 
partners brings stability to farms, grocers, restaurants, food 
banks, and consumers. Your insight on agricultural development, 
trade promotion, and foreign competition will inform us as we 
continue to draft the farm bill. Your perspectives are crucial 
to feeding communities locally, nationally, and across the 
globe.
    I also have to add that I am thrilled to have heard for the 
first time in this Committee that we have a nutrition hearing 
planned, and I look forward to it, because this is an issue 
that we must prioritize on this Committee, that has 
jurisdiction over it. So, I am looking forward to that, very 
excited to work with the chair on that issue. And with that, 
thank you again. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Hayes. I would just 
close with a couple comments here. Again, thank you all for 
being here, and thank you for the work that you do to really 
support farmers like me. When we talk about trade, I think what 
gets missed so often is that it takes a lot of hard work to 
build those relationships, and we need all the tools available 
to make sure that happens.
    And so, for us, for me, as a farmer, I can't do it alone, 
right? I can't just hop on a plane, go to Taiwan, and say hey, 
buy my corn, buy my soybeans. I will bring it over in a couple 
of little containers. But we need folks like you, that are at 
the table, that can use those tools, that could help us create 
those relationships, to bring folks to see our apple orchards 
in Colorado, and to really open up the door and the window to 
the world of what we do, and we do so well here in this 
country.
    So I will just say, a couple points that I took out of 
today that I think are really important for us to continue to 
beat the drum on, and that is we need free trade, but we need 
fair trade. And we need to make sure that we have the fair 
trade and the tools at our disposal that really allows us to 
play on a global playing field. And so, I just really would 
recommend that the Administration, and anybody that cares about 
agriculture in this country, pays attention to that, and make 
sure that we are at the table on those discussions.
    I will also say, I appreciate your comments, Ranking Member 
Hayes, in regards to the full Committee, and the work that we 
look at doing in the first work period in June, to have a 
conversation about the nutrition, and SNAP Program, and, 
moreover, just the overall building of a good farm bill that we 
can be proud of.
    So, with that, under the Rules of the Committee, the 
records of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar 
days to receive additional material and supplementary written 
responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by a 
Member. And, with that, this hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
   Supplementary Material Submitted by John Griffith, Executive Vice 
   President, Ag Business and CHS Hedging, CHS Inc.; Chairman, North 
                   American Export Grain Association
Insert
          Mr. Rose. Thank you. Mr. Griffith, in your testimony you 
        discussed the importance of inland waterways as a vital part of 
        CHS's supply chain. Tennessee's inland waterways are also a 
        vital part of my state's transportation network, however, in my 
        opinion, updating inland waterway infrastructure is often a 
        challenging task, especially when inland waterway projects are 
        competing for funds against other transportation-related 
        infrastructure projects. In your testimony you noted that most 
        U.S. locks and dams have surpassed their expected 50 year 
        design life, increasing delays and unscheduled outages that 
        threatened to erode America's competitive infrastructure 
        advantage. If you could, for the record, expand on just how 
        damaging these delays and unscheduled outages are on our 
        ability to export agricultural goods? My time has expired, so I 
        will have to yield back. Please respond for the record, if you 
        might. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Congressman Rose, thank you for this important question. Any delay 
or unscheduled damages to our ability to export agricultural goods 
abroad can be extremely damaging.
    U.S. agricultural goods are competing on a global scale and are 
sometimes less price competitive than goods from other countries around 
the world. Oftentimes, our products distinguish themselves as the top 
choice of our customers due to their quality and their reliability. Any 
unscheduled delays, due to deteriorating infrastructure or otherwise, 
threatens that reliability and forces our customers around the world to 
consider options elsewhere. Once you lose a customer, it can be 
extremely difficult to win them back.
    In addition, infrastructure delays and outages tend to compound 
across the entire infrastructure system. An outage in one part of the 
country, or one mode of transportation, will have impacts elsewhere. 
For example, if a lock or dam in the Pacific Northwest were shut down, 
causing commerce to stop, it would strain the rail and trucking 
systems, causing further backups and raising prices for shippers and 
farmers. In addition, commodity flows will be forced to shift to other 
export corridors around the country, causing price changes and delays 
in other regions far from the original outage.
                                 ______
                                 
     Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Gregory Doud, Former 
  Ambassador; Vice President of Global Situational Awareness & Chief 
  Economist, Aimpoint Research, Division of Directions Research, Inc.
          Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for that. In one of our 
        listening sessions, roundtable we did recently in North 
        Carolina, we had a chance, just by happenstance, sat down and 
        had breakfast with the ambassador from India to the United 
        States. Mr. Griffith, earlier this year the U.S. was joined by 
        Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, and Ukraine in filing a 
        counter-notification with the World Trade Organization that 
        documents how India's subsidies to their rice and wheat farmers 
        far exceed allowable limits, effectively allowing them to sell 
        their commodities to the rest of the world at lower than world 
        market prices. With your experience in global commodity 
        trading, can you share with us how India's over-subsidization 
        impacts U.S. grocers, and are you supportive of a formal 
        dispute process to ensure India is compliant with their WTO 
        commitments?
          Mr. Griffith. Thank you for the question. I will say, just 
        generally, we are supportive of free and fair trade, and the 
        mechanisms to get there, to support that type of global 
        activity. I would prefer to maybe yield to Ambassador Doud 
        about the trade topic specifically from a policy perspective, 
        because I think he is better suited to answer the question, or 
        we could follow up.
          Mr. Thompson. Well, why don't we follow up at this time, 
        since my time has expired.

7/21/23

    Prior to 2011, India had never been a major player in global rice 
trade with exports below 6.3 million metric tons (MMT). A change to 
India's domestic support program in 2011 resulted in 10.4 MMT of Indian 
rice exports with exports ranging from 10 to 12 MMT until 2020 when 
they jumped again to over 20 MMT. Today India's domestic support 
program, which includes subsidies for water, fuel, fertilizer and even 
electricity, has resulted in India becoming the world's largest rice 
exporter by a very large margin. USDA is currently projecting Indian 
rice exports of 23 MMT, which is 41% of 56.4 MMT in total global rice 
trade. To put this in context, USDA currently projects U.S. rice 
exports for the coming year at 2.54 MMT. These additional Indian rice 
supplies have had a negative impact on rice prices globally for the 
past decade.
    As USTR's Chief Agricultural Negotiator during the previous 
Administration, I had the honor of handing India's representative to 
the WTO in Geneva the first ever counter-notification in agriculture 
where the U.S. Government determined, using India's data, that India's 
domestic subsidies in rice were, as I recall, roughly 7-8 times above 
their WTO limits, and for wheat some 6-7 fold larger than India was 
allowed under the Uruguay Round agreement.
    At that time, I fully supported the initiation of a formal dispute 
settlement process with India regarding both its domestic rice and 
wheat subsidy regime at the WTO, and I still do.
    However, there has been a very recent development that merits very 
close attention and a fresh look as it relates to this subject. On 
Thursday, July 20, India announced its intention to ban (at least some) 
rice exports (see wire story below). This development now complicates 
this matter. I would recommend that the Committee consult with USDA and 
USTR to analyze the implications of this recent development before 
further action is considered.
            Best regards,

Ambassador Gregg Doud.
                               attachment

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/rice-prices-set-climb-
further-after-india-export-ban-trade-standstill-2023-07-21/]
Rice prices set to climb further after India export ban, trade at 
        standstill
By Naveen Thukral \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.reuters.com/authors/naveen-thukral/.

July 21, 2023, 1:28 a.m. EDT, Updated 3 days ago

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Farmers plant saplings in a rice field on the outskirts of 
        Ahmedabad, India, July 5, 2019. Reuters/Amit Dave/File Photo.
Summary
   Buyers, sellers awaiting market reaction after India's ban

   Rice price rally comes after gains in wheat, sparks food 
        inflation

    Singapore, July 21 (Reuters)--Asian rice trade paused on Friday to 
digest the previous day's ban by India, by far the world's biggest 
supplier, of a major share of its exports of the staple, with prices 
expected to climb substantially in coming days, three traders said.
    India, which accounts for 40% of world rice exports, on Thursday 
ordered \2\ a halt to its largest rice export category to reduce 
domestic prices, which have climbed to multi-year highs in recent weeks 
as erratic weather threatens production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/india-prohibits-
export-non-basmati-white-rice-notice-2023-07-20/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Rice prices are going to go up further in the export market. We 
expect a minimum gain of around $50 a metric ton and it could be $100 
or even more,'' said one Singapore-based trader at an international 
trading company.
    ``Right now, everybody--sellers as well as buyers--are waiting to 
see how much the market goes up,'' the trader said.
    Two other traders, one in Singapore and the other in Bangkok, said 
they expected a similar gain in prices. The traders declined to be 
identified as they are not authorised to speak to media.
    ``We haven't heard of any trades done today but buyers will have to 
pay higher prices to get cargoes as India's decision has taken out 
large volumes from the market,'' the second Singapore trader said.
    India's decision to ban rice exports coincides with strong gains in 
the global wheat market that have sparked renewed concerns over red-hot 
food prices.
    Global wheat prices jumped more than 10% this week, their biggest 
weekly gain in more than 16 months as Russian attacks on Ukrainian 
ports raised worries over global supply.
    Rice is a staple for more than three billion people, and nearly 90% 
of the water-intensive crop is produced in Asia, where the dry El Nino 
weather pattern is likely to curb supplies.
    In Thailand, the world's second biggest exporter, suppliers were 
waiting to find out prices before signing new deals.
    ``Exporters will not want to sell, they won't know what prices to 
quote,'' Chookiat Ophaswongse, honorary President of the Thai Rice 
Exporters Association, told Reuters. ``Some traders expect prices could 
go as high as $700-$800 per (metric) ton.''
    Rice prices in top exporting countries had been rising on 
expectations of India's ban.
    Vietnam's 5% broken rice was offered at $515-$525 per metric ton, 
its highest since 2011, before India's late-Thursday announcement.
    India's 5% broken parboiled variety hovered this week near a 5 year 
peak at $421-$428 per metric ton and Thailand's 5% broken rice prices 
jumped to $545 per metric ton--their highest since February 2021.

          Reporting by Naveen Thukral; additional reporting by Khanh Vu 
        in Hanoi and Panarat Thepgumpanat in Bangkok; editing by Robert 
        Birsel.
                                 ______
                                 
                           Submitted Question
Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress 
        from North Carolina
Response from Lori Stevermer, President-Elect, National Pork Producers 
        Council; Customer Success Manager, Alltech U.S. Pork Business
    Question. Ms. Stevermer, you referred to how trade has allowed the 
U.S. pork industry to expand, in one case by as many as five new pork 
packing plants in a few years' time. Potential demand certainly has an 
effect on investments in the supply chain.
    Even so, one fear I have is that U.S. workers risk being harmed in 
the rush to cater to foreign markets. After coming online, some of 
these plants and their local communities, like the one in Sioux City, 
Iowa, became COVID ``hotspots'' during the pandemic as a result of poor 
PPE distribution, lax enforcement of distancing and other protective 
measures, and undue influence on local health officials to keep plants 
open. This is on top of the everyday physical demands of meatpacking 
work.
    Could you highlight ways we might work together to ensure that 
meeting foreign demand does not come at the expense of workers here at 
home?
    Answer. We appreciate the question and as the group representing 
America's pork/hog producers we feel that this would be more thoroughly 
addressed by the companies that run these processing facilities and 
their trade association the North American Meat Institute. Overall, for 
the industry international trade adds $63 to the value of each hog 
marketed, and in lean times like this when producers are losing money 
on their hogs, that makes the difference between a devastating loss and 
a catastrophic loss. Producers do not raise hogs specifically for the 
export market, we raise pigs for U.S. consumers. Unfortunately, there 
are certain cuts of meat that we cannot produce enough of like bellies 
(bacon) and ribs--which is why we imported over $2.5 billion of these 
types of products in 2022. This creates a surplus in certain pork 
products. Much of what we export are variety meats and other cuts that 
aren't consumed domestically, so while we do trade extensively, a lot 
of that trade is aimed at ensuring we can make use of the whole 
carcass, not just the belly and ribs.

                              [all]