"Agricultural Perspectives on the Future of the USMCA"
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Agriculture U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsAngie Craig
Amidst this cloud of economic uncertainty, family farmers have been able to largely turn to our allies to the north and south as reliable markets for our goods. They've served as ports in the storm during this difficult economic times. Now, by threatening to blow up USMCA, the president and his administration are threatening the last source of trade certainty our farmers have. They're right to have concerns; this president is unstable. In the past year, the president has asked, "Who would ever sign a thing like this?"
This might surprise the current Trump administration, but USMCA was negotiated by the first Trump administration and signed by President Trump. And while USMCA may not be perfect, there are certainly improvements that we should make. It's still vital for American farmers, ranchers, foresters, and businesses. In our continued pursuit to feed, clothe, and fuel the world, Mexico and Canada remain our top agriculture trade partners. Our relationships with these allies put money in the pockets of family farmers and creates and supports jobs up and down the food supply chain.
In just the last year, my state, Minnesota, exported over $2 billion worth of agriculture products to Mexico and Canada. Our top ag exports are corn, grain, and oilseed milling products and soybeans. Minnesota exported 51 million in eggs to Canada and 44 million worth of sugar to Mexico. In total, agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada support nearly 10,000 jobs in Minnesota. That's 10,000 people in Minnesota able to keep food on their table, raise a family, and put a roof over their head because of North American trade.
That's 10,000 Minnesotans whose jobs are at risk because President Trump would rather bully allies than build with them. It worries me when the president calls USMCA irrelevant. It's even more concerning that at a time when we should be working with our allies to lower costs for farmers and fight back the influence of China, that the president announced a new 10% tariff on Canada, Mexico, and the EU. The timing could not be worse for more chaos. Our farm economy cannot take any more shocks to the system.
Right now we need to be strengthening our relationships with allies, not undermining them. And I think that the testimony we hear today will affirm that trade across North America is absolutely vital. I look forward to having a frank conversation today. Thank you again to our witnesses for being here, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Glenn Thompson
The chair would request that all the members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony and ensure that there's ample time for questions. Our first witness today is Mr. Michael Lichte, the chief insights and optimization officer at Dairy Farmers of America. Our next witness is Mrs. Kristin Sawin, the vice president of government and corporate affairs at Weyerhaeuser. Our third witness today is Mr. Dave Puglia. Mr. Puglia is the president and chief executive officer at the Western Growers Association.
And I'll now yield to the ranking member to introduce our next witness.
Angie Craig
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next witness today is Mrs. Jamie Beyer. Mrs. Beyer has a farm near Wheaton, Minnesota, where she and her husband Rod grow soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and alfalfa. She serves on the board of directors of and is an executive committee member at the American Soybean Association. Thank you, Mrs. Beyer, for being here today, and I look forward to hearing the farmer's perspective.
Glenn Thompson
Our fifth witness is Mr. Michael Schump, the senior director for international affairs at the Meat Institute. And our final witness today is Mr. Neil Harrington, the senior vice president for the Americas program at the United States Chamber of Commerce. I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. I think hearing from you all is a great pretext to our work with USTR because we want to be your voice. And so really excited about this panel that we've mustered together today.
And we're now going to proceed through your testimony. You each have five minutes. The timer in front of you will count down to zero, at which time your time has expired. Mr. Lichty, please begin when you're ready.
Michael Lichte
All right, thank you, Chairman Thompson. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to the US dairy sector. My name is Michael Lichty, and I serve as chief insights and optimization officer for Dairy Farmers of America. DFA is the largest dairy cooperative in the United States, representing nearly 5,000 family dairy farms and marketing more than 64 billion pounds of milk annually. Our scale gives us a direct line of sight into how trade policy shapes the milk prices our farmer-owners depend upon to sustain their operations, their families, and their communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on how USMCA is working today and where improvements are needed to ensure the agreement delivers real results for our farmers as we approach the joint review. Exports are essential to the future of the US dairy industry. Today, export demand accounts for roughly 17% of US milk production and is a key driver of growth across our sector. For dairy farmers, the ability to access and compete in global markets directly supports the milk prices they receive and the investments made across rural America. Within the broader export picture, USMCA remains the most important trade agreement for US dairy.
Mexico and Canada together account for more than 40% of US dairy export value. For our farmers, stable and reliable market access is not optional; it is foundational to their ability to operate and plan for the future. First, I want to emphasize that USMCA is working well in Mexico. Mexico is the most important trading partner for the US dairy industry, purchasing billions of dollars of US dairy products each year that are used throughout the manufacturing, retail, and food service channels. This relationship has been built over decades through open markets, strong partnerships, and close coordination between our industries.
It stands today as a clear example of how trade agreements can deliver mutual benefit when implemented effectively. For DFA, this success is very real. Mexico is our largest export destination, representing over 14% of our total export revenue. This growth reflects what happens when US dairy farmers are given a fair opportunity to compete; they are able to deliver. And every dollar of export revenue generated in Mexico flows back through our cooperative and supports the milk prices paid to our farmer-owners.
As we approach the joint review, it is critical that we preserve this success. That includes maintaining duty-free access and ensuring that emerging policy developments, such as Mexico's push for milk self-sufficiency or the potential restriction on common cheese names, do not undermine the open market access that has supported our growth thus far.
At the same time, USMCA has not delivered the same level of results in Canada. While the agreement established new opportunities for market access, those opportunities have not consistently translated into commercially meaningful outcomes for US dairy exporters. In practice, Canada's administration of its dairy quotas has limited their usability. In some cases, access that was negotiated has been only partially utilized. For example, in 2023, less than 10% of available access under the yogurt quota was ultimately filled.
At the same time, Canadian dairy pricing policies, especially for non-fat milk solids, continue to create conditions that distort trade and impact competitiveness for US producers. For our farmer owners, the outcome is clear. Access that exists on paper is not consistently translating into real market opportunities. As the joint review moves forward, improving how these commitments function in practice will be important to ensuring the agreement delivers real results for US farmers. In closing, USMCA remains one of the most important trade frameworks supporting the US dairy industry and the rural communities we serve.
As policymakers look ahead to the joint review, we encourage a focused approach. Preserve what is working, particularly our strong relationship with Mexico, while ensuring that the agreement delivers meaningful results across all markets. At the end of the day, our farmers are asking for one thing: a fair opportunity to compete. When they have that opportunity, they win, and with the right focus, USMCA can continue delivering the opportunities for years to come to preserve the next generation coming to the family farm. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Glenn Thompson
Mr. Lucht, thanks so much for your testimony. Mrs. Sawin, please begin when you're ready.
Kristin Sawin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Craig, and honorable members of the committee. I am Kristen Sawin, Vice President of Government and Corporate Affairs at Weyerhaeuser, appearing today on behalf of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, of which Weyerhaeuser is a member. NAFO represents private forest landowners who collectively own over 44 million acres of sustainably managed working forests in the United States. At Weyerhaeuser, we own 10 and a half million acres. We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspectives on why trade policy matters to the US forest products sector and offer some ideas on how Congress can ensure a level playing field for the American forest landowner.
American private working forests are among the most productive and sustainably managed in the world. We grow 53% more fiber than we harvest annually. Unfortunately, we are seeing some significant market disruptions. Since 2014, there have been over 35 pulp mill closures and a 20% contraction of logging capacity in the United States. Increasingly, export markets are an important segment of the overall economic picture for our sector.
I want to talk a little bit about some trade data, first in the US log and wood export, wood chip exports. These are fairly constrained markets with the trade barriers recently put into place by China. In 2023, our primary trade partners are now Canada, Japan, and Vietnam. And given this concentration, we remain fairly vulnerable to significant price deflation when any of these markets tighten. When looking specifically at USMCA, you'll find that Canada is an importer of hardwood logs and chips and an exporter of softwood lumber and other wood products, while the US exports finished lumber and other wood products to Mexico.
That's about 24% of our domestic production in the United States. Good policy can help support the sector and improve market stability for our landowners. We would point you in three main areas. First of all, energy markets. Fixing the definition of woody biomass in the renewable fuels standard to ensure that low-value and residual quality wood are moved into energy markets is free to the federal government and is an immediate uplift for landowners and for mills in the United States.
Second is housing policy. Housing starts drive lumber demand. NAFO supports the House-passed 21st Century Road to Housing Act, and we hope your Senate colleagues join you soon. And finally, trade policy. Fair and enforceable trade rules are critical, as are the removal of the non-tariff barriers, both sanitary and phytosanitary, and then tariff support for domestic manufacturing operations.
The United States should be viewed as a wood basket to the world. We operate under the highest sustainability standards and have more timber than we can process domestically. And unfortunately, year-over-year trade data shows that we are actually reducing our exports and not increasing them, and we'd like to see that changed. I'm going to point you to my written testimony on some other areas of trade, such as China, India, and the European Union, but focus primarily on USMCA. For the USMCA, there's a bit of a quirk for us, at least we view it as a quirk in Chapter 10, which is one of the adjudicatory chapters, used to be Chapter 19 in NAFTA for those who are interested.
We would ask that you consider eliminating Chapter 10 and give it a really hard look. It was originally envisioned as a temporary provision while the WTO was being stood up. In our view, Chapter 10 is obsolete but can be used to drag out disputes and has become a little bit more political than adjudicatory lately. In sum, NAFO is committed to being a resource for this committee as you work through these issues. We believe that with the right policy support, America's forests can be an even greater engine for rural prosperity, nature and climate-positive outcomes, and national economic strength.
Thank you and look forward to your questions.
Speaker 5
Ms. Solwin, thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Puglia, please begin when you're ready.
Dave Puglia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Craig, members of the committee. My name is Dave Puglia, I'm the president and CEO of Western Growers. Western Growers' members produce, pack, and ship fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts from the Western United States, but our members operate throughout the United States and many also operate abroad. In total, our members account for roughly half of the annual fresh produce grown in the United States. I'm very pleased today to be able to provide testimony from our perspective of the perspective of our members regarding the review of the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
First, maintaining tariff-free access. Canada and Mexico rank first and second respectively in terms of exports and represent roughly two-thirds of all global US fresh produce exports. Our three markets have been integrated for so long now that many of my members speak about their sales into Canada and Mexico the same way they speak about sales within the United States. Western Growers' members thus support maintaining tariff-free access in North America. While there may be some exceptions tied to trade adjudications or other specific cases, the general rule should be duty-free access for produce between our countries.
Western Growers also urges that the United States and its partners affirm that USMCA's framework and tools should be the primary vehicle to address trade issues between the signatory nations.
We urge the administration to conclude this work quickly in order for trade flows to normalize and for trade tension to abate. While some of our products were temporarily placed on Canadian retaliation lists last year, just as critically, the trade tension between our countries has resulted in Canadian consumers and by extension Canadian retailers looking to diversify away from American produce. While Western Growers supports the continuation of a free trade agreement with our North American neighbors, we also believe improvements should be made to USMCA. As members of this committee know, growing and harvesting fresh produce requires a huge amount of human labor. Indeed, labor's share of the cost of production is nearly 40% for fruit and vegetable growers and can be even higher for some.
Moreover, average hourly earnings of US ag workers have greatly outpaced wage inflation in recent years. Given this reality, one of the biggest persistent disadvantages US producers have when competing against imports is the disparity in labor costs and standards. Western Growers previously raised this as a top issue during President Trump's first term. Ultimately, significant labor reforms were enshrined to primarily address Mexico's comparatively lax standards. This included wage increase commitments and pathways for signatory countries to sanction each other for violations.
We note that there have been successful changes to Mexican labor laws and positive results for certain sectors since USMCA came into force. Nevertheless, there continue to be barriers in place for the promise of USMCA to be fully fulfilled. Mexican government oversight remains underfunded and various budget reductions or reallocations have challenged the rapid and full implementation of the promised labor reforms. So we support efforts to reinforce and build upon USMCA's labor visions, particularly as it relates to wages and worker protection laws. Doing so will not only promote better conditions for Mexican workers but also foster fairer competition with the United States.
Regarding bankruptcy challenges, among the key challenges in perishable ag trade across North America is the issue of reciprocal enforceable mechanisms to protect fresh produce growers against non-payment. In the United States, Congress long ago provided a trust mechanism as part of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, which grants fresh produce shippers first priority creditor status in the event of a buyer bankruptcy. In 2024, Canada adopted a similar mechanism. We would urge that in the USMCA review, that Mexico be asked to adopt a similar mechanism to provide equivalent protection for exporters of fresh ag commodities. Such a tool would establish trilateral safeguards, ensuring fair and secure trade access.
We also call out the need for enhanced food safety provisions. As the chair noted, we have the most rigorous standards in the United States with respect to food safety and inspections. However, we don't see the same commitment south of the border. Because of our concerns about foodborne illness, the US government has increased government inspections of domestic farms and there has been a boost in private investment by the producers themselves in enhanced food safety systems. Food safety compliance though cannot stop at the border.
In 2021, roughly 60% of all fruit consumed in the United States was imported and nearly 40% of all vegetables, with Mexico being the dominant exporter. USMCA renewal presents an opportunity for the United States to ensure that food safety oversight and standards are as vigorous in Mexico as they are domestically. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these and other perspectives on renewal of the agreement and again would urge that USMCA be continued but with important changes to rebalance the state of play between our three countries. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Mr. Boyer, thank you so much for your testimony. Ms. Beyer, please begin when you're ready.
Jamie Beyer
Thank you Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the House Agriculture Committee. It is an honor to join you today to testify on behalf of the American Soybean Association regarding USMCA. As Ranking Member Craig mentioned, my name is Jamie Beyer. I farm with my husband in Minnesota and South Dakota, where we grow soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and alfalfa. I also serve as a member of the executive committee for ASA, which represents US soybean farmers across 30 soy-producing states.
The US soybean industry has a profound positive impact on the US economy, with the entire soy value chain generating an economic impact of 124 billion in 2025. However, the trade uncertainty plaguing our industry this marketing year highlights the importance of stable, long-term trade relationships for US soy. Soybeans are the largest agricultural export in the state of Minnesota and the US at large. Robust international trade is a top priority for ASA, and we work together with the US Soybean Export Council and the World Initiative for Soy in Human Health to continue operating and opening new global markets while maintaining long-term export customers. According to the Agricultural Coalition for USMCA, which includes nearly 50 US ag groups including ASA, agricultural and seafood exports under USMCA generated 149 billion in economic output, supporting nearly half million US jobs and 36 billion in US wages.
Since the USMCA was enacted, the value of ag exports to Canada and Mexico has increased by 47% compared to only 18% for the rest of the world. For the US soybean sector, the importance of USMCA cannot be overstated. USMCA has provided stability and predictability for integration of North American agricultural markets, especially through the guarantee of duty-free treatment for soy and soy products. In the last complete marketing year, Canada and Mexico together accounted for 4 billion in exports, or just over 13% of total soy complex exports. In addition to this, Canada also remains the top export market for biomass-based diesel, a key value-added market for US soy.
USMCA upgraded NAFTA in several important ways, particularly through the inclusion of a strengthened chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which builds on the rules that already apply as part of the World Trade Organization's SPS agreement. The revised agreement also included a novel section on agricultural biotechnology that preempted disruptive trade barriers stemming from the use of genetically engineered traits. Both additions modernized the agreement for US agriculture. ASA's top priority in the five-year review of USMCA is a wholehearted preservation of the trilateral agreement between the countries that maintains the comprehensive duty-free access of USMCA, the WTO-plus SPS chapter, and an effective dispute settlement mechanism. We support a full 16-year extension of the current agreement and do not advocate for major changes to existing provisions of the agreement.
USMCA is critical for the US soybean sector and should be continued without creating disruptions or additional uncertainty. However, there are minor adjustments to USMCA that the three parties could consider, including adjustments that help the agreement better facilitate agricultural trade. These recommendations include setting maximum residue limits more effectively without undermining the effectiveness of regulatory approval processes and harmonizing grain inspection across the three parties to minimize transportation delays and support efficient agricultural shipping. These small improvements to USMCA would benefit agricultural trade and prevent additional barriers to trade. Again, ASA strongly supports a full 16-year renewal of USMCA without delay as soybean farmers continue to face a challenging economic landscape.
Failure to renew USMCA would be catastrophic. Maintaining free, open, rules-based, and fair trade with North America is critical for the continued success of US agriculture. USMCA in many ways is the gold standard trade agreement. President Trump negotiated this agreement, overwhelming bipartisan majorities supported it, and entire industries, companies, farmers, and families depend on it. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of US soybean farmers.
ASA appreciates the committee's focus on the importance of USMCA renewal to the ag industry. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 9
Mrs. Beyer, thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Schump, please begin whenever you're ready.
Michael Schump
Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Michael Schump, and I am the Senior Director of International Affairs at the Meat Institute. I am here today to underscore the US meat industry's support for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement and to respectfully request that members of this committee work in consultation with the Trump administration to preserve the agreement's benefits for American agriculture. The Meat Institute is the US's oldest and largest trade association representing packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, and processed meat products, and Meat Institute member companies account for more than 95% of US output of these products. The US meat industry supports more than 3.2 million jobs, providing $205 billion in labor income and generates $912 billion in total sales.
International trade is particularly vital for the long-term strength and growth of the US farm economy. In 2025, US meat and poultry exports exceeded $23 billion, and exports to Canada and Mexico accounted for $8 billion of that trade. That represents 35% of our total US meat and poultry exports. USMCA has fostered an integrated North American meat industry that has created opportunities for US meat exports to flourish worldwide and for American agricultural producers, workers, and consumers to thrive. It is the world's gold standard trade agreement, eliminating most tariff and non-tariff barriers on US meat and livestock products and has yielded a predictable, transparent trade environment for American businesses, rural and agricultural communities, and American workers.
In 2025, Canada was the US's fourth-largest export market for beef and pork by value and the second-largest market for our poultry exports. Canada is the top market for US processed pork products like bacon, ham, and sausages, which boost the US pork industry's revenue while offering protection against volatile demand for these products in markets like China and Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, Mexico was the US's third-largest beef export market by value and the top value destination for US pork and poultry exports in 2025. Mexico is a key market for US beef and pork variety meats, products like beef tongues and pork jowls, which find stronger prices and consumer demand outside the US. Beef exports to Canada and Mexico added $91 in value per fed head, and pork exports to both markets added more than $28 per market hog in 2025.
Maintaining this robust US meat trade with Canada and Mexico is crucial to reclaiming America's agricultural trade surplus. Walking away from or significantly undermining the agreement would drive up the trade deficit, depress wages, spur increased processing capacity in Canada and Mexico to the detriment of US agricultural producers, and raise costs for American consumers.
Canada and Mexico are also leading suppliers of livestock, beef, pork, and poultry products to the US, illustrating the dynamic nature of the North American packing and processing economy. Imported products from our USMCA partners contribute to the resilience of the US food supply chain, complement rather than displace domestic production, and moderate inflationary pressures driven by strong demand. In fact, imports from Canada and Mexico generate $3.4 billion for American cattle producers and meat companies. Renewing USMCA is also imperative to our national security. The integrated supply chains across North America reduce dependence on adversarial countries for critical food and agricultural inputs and have made the US less vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions that could threaten our own economic and security interests, including our food supply.
USMCA prevents competitors and adversaries from siphoning off market share that has been cultivated for decades by American farmers and ranchers. Thanks to USMCA's promotion of science and risk-based trade, strong consultative and dispute settlement provisions, and enforceable access commitments, the US meat industry is not subject to excessive and unwarranted regulatory regimes. USMCA ensures that within North America, US exports and American farmers, ranchers, and businesses face the fewest regulatory barriers and enjoy the most unfettered access to the Canadian and Mexican markets. When issues do arise, the agreement's consultative provisions are appropriately designed to adjudicate disagreements and crucially enforce decisions to guarantee compliance. No other trade agreement can boast the same success.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony and stand ready to work with you to support the preservation of the USMCA for the benefit of the US meat industry and the broader American farm economy. I look forward to taking your questions.
Speaker 11
Mr. Schrum, thank you so much for your testimony. And Mr. Harrington, please begin when you're ready.
Neil Harrington
Chairman Thompson, thank you, thanks to Ranking Member Craig and the distinguished members of this committee for this really important opportunity to talk about USMCA's impact on American agriculture. We at the US Chamber are unabashed supporters of USMCA because the agreement has proven itself indispensable to US businesses, farmers, growers, producers, workers, and consumers. More than 13 million American jobs depend on trade with Canada and Mexico, and the USMCA has fostered US economic growth in a manner that supports many additional high-wage positions. US manufacturers export more made-in-America goods to Canada and Mexico than they do to the next 12 largest US export markets combined. Canada and Mexico are the top export destinations for more than 100,000 small and medium-sized American businesses, including many family farms and growers, which benefit from the USMCA's first-of-its-kind provisions catering specifically to SMEs that serve as our economy's primary engine of job creation.
Our North American neighbors are also the source of critical imports essential to the competitiveness of US industry and manufacturing, many of which are unavailable from domestic sources at reasonable prices or in sufficient quantities. Indeed, no sectors embody the success of USMCA more than food and agriculture. Canada and Mexico are the destinations for a full one-third of US ag exports, totaling $59 billion annually. Canadian and Mexican foreign direct investment in the US in US food sector totaled $17 billion in 2024, up more than 25% since USMCA's entry into force in 2020. Best-in-class sanitary and phytosanitary rules have helped ensure transparency, information sharing, and science-based decisions on which US food and ag interests rely in all three countries.
And no sector better exemplifies the deep intertwined supply chains and co-production which have become true hallmarks of the USMCA's efficiency. Canada and the US boast deep intra-industry connections that support trade within sectors and products such as grains, feed, beef, and pork.
Mexico and the US enjoy a complementary trade relationship that sees grains, oilseeds, and meat flow south, while vegetables and fruit that the US doesn't produce in the winter or in sufficient quantities flow north. As the joint review process advances, the Chamber's priorities are straightforward. First, maintain and strengthen the trilateral rules of the USMCA that support jobs and enhance North American competitiveness. Second, provide certainty and confidence to investors and producers by completing a transparent, expeditious, and orderly joint review. And third, secure a renewed commitment to full compliance with the agreement and enforce the terms when compliance falls short, including in the food and agricultural sectors.
My colleague Michael mentioned that Canada is falling short on USMCA compliance and implementation on dairy market access. Mexico is failing to adhere to its obligations related to the pace of approvals for agricultural biotechnologies and food products. And in imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the US is in violation of the USMCA's core commitment to maintain tariff-free trade within North America. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum in particular have adversely impacted prices of products ranging from farm equipment to food and agricultural packaging. Indeed, today's hearing coincides, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, with the release of the Purdue report this week, which we find extremely instructive.
US households save an estimated $700 annually on food costs in today's dollars, equivalent to roughly 7% of household spending, food spending I should say, thanks to USMCA. Every 1% reduction in food tariffs is associated with an average 2.8% decrease in food prices over time. The benefits of tariff-free trade in North America are greatest for lower-income households, which spend a larger share of their budgets on food, and reversing USMCA tariff preferences would increase food prices and place additional pressure on household budgets. I will close by echoing the message conveyed in a bipartisan letter to the US Trade Representative last November by over 100 members of the House of Representatives, including many of you on this distinguished committee. Quote, USMCA was truly a landmark agreement for American agriculture when it entered into force, and its positive impact on US agriculture has yet to reach its maximum benefit.
At a time when economic challenges threaten the livelihood of family farms, producers need certainty provided under the USMCA more than ever, end quote. The US Chamber could not agree more with those sentiments, and we will continue working closely with all of you to ensure that the US farmers, growers, processors, and producers who have been a true backbone of this country's economy can continue to leverage duty-free trade in North America to create jobs and drive growth. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Glenn Thompson
Mr. Harrington, thank you so much for your testimony. At this time, members will be recognized for questions in order of seniority, alternating between majority, minority members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after the hearing convened. You'll be recognized for five minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible. And I now recognize myself for five minutes. The US dairy industry has faced persistent challenges from Canada due to their unwillingness to implement their tariff-rate quotas in a way that allows full market access for US dairy farmers.
In 2023, the US access negotiated under the yogurt and buttermilk quota was 4,135 metric tons, but only 382 metric tons were actually filled, representing just 9% of the utilization Canada had already committed to. Given the challenges with Canada, what specific outcomes is the US dairy industry seeking to create a more fair and balanced trade agreement with Canada? Mr. Litzky?
Michael Lichte
First off, Chairman Thompson, I'd just like to acknowledge your leadership with the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.
We as participants in the industry see that as such impactful legislation, not only to our farmers, our industry, but also just ensuring the continued nutrition that access for our children and nutrition that tastes good in our minds. Specific to your question, while we see that there are opportunities to improve upon what was negotiated as a part of the USMCA, I think one resolution that comes top of mind is for the quota that was given is to allow the access and full use of that quota and to provide more enforcement for the non-use of such quota.
Glenn Thompson
Well, thank you for that. Ms. Solwen, your testimony talks about US-Canada softwood lumber dispute and discusses industry interests in addressing the dispute resolution process outlined in Chapter 10. You want to walk us through the current state of the conversations and what you expect to see as it relates to USMCA?
Kristin Sawin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Currently, the USMCA Chapter 10 dispute settlement system is a panel process that seats three members. Sometimes they're three from Canada, sometimes, or excuse me, sometimes they're two from Canada, one from the US, sometimes they're two from the US, one from Canada. But what that results in is that the panels are often more political than they are adjudicatory and they can compel federal agencies to change the manner in which they enforce US laws without a meaningful appeals process. The system is also incredibly slow and has been the source of significant delays in this particular dispute.
The delays to date are, we're around 10 years in now, and the United States has collected close to $8 billion, but the administration is unable to liquidate these funds into the US Treasury until the Chapter 10 disputes have been completed. We don't even have panels seated for many of them. So we have submitted comments to USTR and have engaged with USTR directly on this request to change Chapter 10.
Glenn Thompson
All right, thank you very much. Ms. Byers, in your testimony, you discuss presidential decrees signed by former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. This decree called for a phase-out of genetically engineered corn as well as a phase-out of glyphosate despite a lack of scientific evidence to support these decisions. This policy would have been harmful to many US and Canadian farmers. How did USMCA dispute settlement process serve as a mechanism to resolve this conflict between the US, Canada, and Mexico?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Chair Thompson. As a corn grower, I am aware of those events as we are in the industry. It's my understanding that the US at first consulted with Mexico with no resolution and then was able to request trade dispute panel to deal with the issue and that Canada supported that initiative. The panel convened, it was able to review scientific evidence, legal arguments, and written testimony and was able to come up with a plan for compliance with Mexico to have that issue resolved in a relatively timely fashion. So what we have seen in that sort of example is despite prior testimony, we were able to move this issue out of the political arena into a rules-based legal process that utilized an independent panel and that supplied consequences if the country violated the commitments and that the trade agreement becomes a path to compliance because there's that risk of losing the benefit of all those beneficial terms in the agreement.
Angie Craig
Well, thank you very much. I'll yield back the what few seconds I have left. Now recognize the distinguished gentlelady from Minnesota, the ranking member, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Beyer, thanks for being here with us today. You know better than anyone how resilient Minnesota soybean growers are. But I also know that the last 18 months have been incredibly challenging. In ASA's comments to USTR on the importance of of USMCA, it concluded by saying failure to renew USMCA would be catastrophic.
Given the market loss in China and the growth of Brazil as well as Argentina, would soybean growers be able to withstand the cancellation of USMCA? And what would that mean practically to growers across the Midwest and how would the end of North American trade help our competitors?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Craig. I you know, soybean wouldn't choose to be in the spotlight as they have for the past eight years. It's brought a lot of awareness to how our industry operates and our reliance on the export markets. So USMCA for us is kind of a shining star because it provides baseline export market facilitation, but also is an example of how we can grow the industry under a trade agreement. So in contrast to sort of the things happening with China where we're maintaining quota levels and maintaining trade, we've been able to successfully grow the markets into Canada and Mexico, so two times the exports over the life of NAFTA and USMCA to Canada and four times into Mexico.
So we consider it a a big win and um is very useful for us.
Angie Craig
Thank you so much. Mr. Schump, in my state of Minnesota, turkey and pork producers are extremely dependent on trade across the northern border with Canada. If USMCA were not renewed, how would livestock supply chains be affected? What would it mean for livestock processing along with producers in my state and the cost of production?
Michael Schump
Thank you for that question, Ranking Member Craig. So as you know, USMCA has underpinned the growth of an extremely integrated North American meat and livestock industry. That's valued at over $16 billion when you include all of our products. And so livestock typically from Canada and Mexico, live cattle, live hogs from Canada travel across the border multiple times often. That livestock those livestock imports help support operational capacity for American feedlots as well as for meat and poultry processing companies.
And then the meat that is produced from those companies is then either shipped back to Canada and Mexico, exported to the world, or shared here domestically with our consumers. And so if we were to disrupt USMCA, we would disrupt those life those critical supply of livestock imports as well as the meat that comes from those products.
Angie Craig
Thank you so much. Mr. Harrington, a recent study by Purdue University found that the pass-through from tariff reductions under NAFTA and continued under USMCA are responsible for saving US households roughly $700 in grocery costs every year. Families are already struggling to afford food due to the tariffs. So as I see it, Americans are at jeopardy of losing these savings if USMCA is terminated. How would a further increase in grocery costs impact American families and if USMCA were terminated, is there any plausible way to realize similar savings in the short term through other policies?
Neil Harrington
Thank you so much, Ranking Member Craig, and thank you for recognizing the Purdue study.
We agree with its findings are incredibly important, underscoring USMCA's USMCA's support for affordability. And at the end of the day, we believe it's consumers that really do benefit most from the efficiencies of the agreement. Yes, in that study, it also indicated that for every 1% reduction in tariffs, you see a 2.8% savings in household savings rate on food-related costs. It's most beneficial to low-income consumers because obviously low-income consumers spend a greater proportion of their budgets on food products. And exactly to your point, if the study also shows conclusively that if we were to lose duty-free access and all the benefits that USMCA provides consumers, household goods, specifically in food and agricultural products, would rise.
There's no question about it. Thank you.
Angie Craig
Well, I appreciate that very much. And again, thank you to all of our witnesses. We know how important the renewal of USMCA truly is. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Frank Lucas
Gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. And I too want to thank our witnesses for being here today. The USMCA expanded market access for US agriculture, including for products and animal byproducts that do not hold the same level of demand in domestic markets. Mr. Harrington, to what extent do these export opportunities contribute to profitability and efficiency for producers and agribusiness, and what would the economic consequences be if these markets were reduced or lost?
Neil Harrington
Thank you very much, Congressman. In a word, if we lost these benefits, it would be devastating to American agriculture and specifically to producers, processors, growers, and farmers. Starting with the fact that more than a third of US agriculture exports go to Canada and Mexico. Beyond that, really what we've seen, what duty-free trade and the certainty of the agreement have provided are these incredibly integrated supply chains that are producing opportunities for producers and growers and farmers and processors in this country based on intercompany trade from Canada, complementary trade from Mexico. These create, and we have a lot of partners, especially in the American Southwest, which will talk about the jobs that these create in the US.
That complementary trade with Mexico creates tens of thousands of jobs. Same thing on Canada because of the degree of intercompany trade being so strong and those supply chains being so strong. So absolutely, I mean, your question goes right to the fundamental importance of preserving this agreement because it would be very damaging if it were to go away.
Michael Schump
Mr. Schumm, do you want to touch on that from the livestock perspective? Selling those pieces and parts an interesting thing.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that question, Congressman. So as I mentioned in my opening testimony, trade with Canada and Mexico returns $91 per head for cattle producers and $28 for our pork producers. So maintaining that trade is critical from that perspective. But we also export to Canada and Mexico high-value cuts as well as processed products in terms of our pork industry to Canada and variety meats to Mexico that don't often find demand in other markets.
And all of that maximizes carcass value for our producers. The one other thing I wanted to mention on this is there's the unintended consequence of leaving USMCA is that Canada and Mexico might then look to other trading partners and increase their own processing capacity that would hurt and harm our producers, workers, as well as consumers in the long run.
Frank Lucas
In my part of Oklahoma, the cattle industry's playing a key role in offsetting poor commodity prices and helping many of my constituents remain operational. So how does the USMCA contribute to the profitability and efficiency for producers? Continuing with your last point.
Michael Schump
So yes, so the agreement like I said it helps to maintain strong livestock trade across North America. And so if we were to leave that agreement what we would see is that trade disrupted, Canada and Mexico keeping more of their livestock within their countries as well as our producers not being able to have to run at full capacity here within the US. You know, some of the livestock we get from Mexico and Canada go for feeding operations or direct slaughter and so we would see areas of the country not be able to have feedlots operate at their full capacity as well as our meat companies would which struggle to have that stable supply of consistent animals for to then produce food that is sent both here to consumers and exported around the world.
Frank Lucas
Switching gears, Ms. Beyer, your testimony mentioned the importance of the biotechnology provisions of the USMCA. What do these provisions mean for farmers when investing in new soybean varieties?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question. It takes, we've been told, 13 years for a trait to be identified and to end up as a seed on a farm. And so the pipeline for the development of technology is always a decade old and that has to do with our regulatory standards, our safety standards in the US. USMCA helps us capitalize on some of those efficiencies between the countries so we're not stacking those sorts of processes that we can recognize each other's efforts in that. And then also it contains commitment to finding pathways for new technology so that that doesn't get bogged down by politics or rhetoric that we have a a commitment to make sure that we're continuing to work on regulating new traits as well.
Jim Costa
Thank you. My time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for five minutes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's important that we hold this hearing as negotiations are going on as we speak with USMCA. As I say all the time, food is a national security issue. And I think California certainly proves it as a third generation farmer. Clearly I know firsthand the challenges that we face. We're the largest agriculture state in the nation.
We exported 23.8 billion dollars in farm products, about 44 percent of what we grow in California. They are such crops as almonds, pistachios, dairy, wine, walnuts, tomatoes, rice, grapes, strawberries, and citrus just to give you a bit of the diversity. We think they're special. I'm not sure we have a communication problem when grow people go to the grocery store they don't go to the specialty crop aisle. But that's another matter.
But people are hurting in farm country. Bankruptcies are up and this is something that is so critical as I go home every week to talk with my farmers, ranchers, dairy men and women. President now Trump took NAFTA one and and upgraded it. It needed to be done. Bob Lighthizer was very effective in that effort.
Put a new label on it, called it USMCA, the best greatest trade agreement ever known to mankind. I think I remember when he signed it in 2020. And that maybe, but the fact is is that it is an important tool between our borders to the north and the south, countries that we've had long-term relationships with.
For the life of me, I can't understand why we're not using that in the five-year review period to deal with the differences, as opposed to insulting comments like a 51st state and other such tactics that I don't think help the process. We need a deal, we must get a deal, and it must be trilateral and enforceable and dependable. Farmers need certainty in our marketplace and not chaos. Mr. Puglia, we've worked together for many years. I appreciate your good work with Western Growers and the specialty crops I talked about.
It's the heart of agriculture not only in my district but in California, where growers compete every day in the North American market. Can you share a bit about the Perishable Ag Commodities Act and why it's important for our industry and why it should be a part of the USMCA discussions with Mexico?
Dave Puglia
Thank you, Congressman Costa, for the question. Appreciate that. Yes, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act recognizes that a producer of a perishable food product, in the event of the buyer going into insolvency or bankruptcy, can't pull the product back by the very fact that it's perishable. By the time the product has been delivered, the clock is running out on its usable lifespan, and by most standards, the product's been sold, the revenue has been generated to the retailer or to the food service company, and the grower, of course, expects to be paid. And so that's the heart of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.
Jim Costa
And we have among the highest standards in the country, California growers, correct?
That is correct.
Jim Costa
And we want them to be strong and consistent oversight. Can you give us one or two examples of imported food safety oversight enforcement that should be improved? You talked a bit about it earlier, and how the United States could use USMCA to secure that?
Dave Puglia
Yes, again, thanks for the question. Very briefly, I'll put it in this context. In 2023, the US FDA conducted 11,000 domestic inspections of produce operations, only 1,500 foreign inspections, even though we have a very significant share of fresh fruits and vegetables coming from abroad. I could show you a case of disparity between an American producer of a fresh produce product and a Mexican producer of the same product, in which case the American producer was subject to much more rigorous standards, much more rigorous testing, and follow-on activity from the FDA, while the Mexican producer was not. And so I think that's an area for improvement.
Jim Costa
And oftentimes these are non-tariff barriers that we have to deal with. And I think if you could submit that information to the committee, it would be helpful. Mr. Schump, with the Meat Institute, you confirmed the New World screwworm in Texas. USDA's confirmed a new detection in June 3rd. In practical terms, what an animal health issues like the screwworm happens, what does it mean for US beef exports?
Michael Schump
Thank you for that question. First, I want to state that New World screwworm is not a food safety issue, and USDA does inspect all of our animals before they go to slaughter and all carcasses before anything would enter the food supply. What we are happy to see is USDA's focus on regionalization and zoning agreements with our trading partners. There should be no impact, according to the World Organization for Animal Health, on any meat product exports. So we would expect those to continue to be exported around the world.
Jim Costa
Thank you. My time's expired, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to submit for unanimous consent a letter that I sent earlier with regards to the issue of naming names like Asiago, Feta, Gorgonzola, and their impact on the EU-Mexico trade deal takes effect. It's important that we get these name brand naming things worked out, and I hope that's a part of the negotiation.
Frank Lucas
Seeing no objection, so ordered. The chair now turns to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for five minutes.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too, as Mr. Costa mentioned, the non-tariff trade barriers, am very concerned about the non-tariff trade barriers that continue to create challenges for us. But Mr. Puglia, recently a bipartisan group of 78 members joined me in sending a letter to Ambassador Greer discussing the challenges for US specialty crops that are harmed by the dumping of Mexican produce into the United States, just making him aware of the challenges as we go forward with USMCA negotiations. Members from all over the country signed this, including members from your state. What suggestions do you have that can help our specialty crop growers that are negatively impacted by Mexican imports?
And again, we're for trade, we're for competitive and balanced trade, but it is the dumping of product into our country, specifically at harvest time, that is so challenging in my area.
Dave Puglia
Thank you, Mr. Scott, I appreciate that question. I would just start by saying that I'm a little envious of some of my colleagues here who represent a single agricultural product. I have 300 plus different agricultural products that fit within the specialty crop category. And I say that because I have to be fair to my colleagues in the specialty crop industry who are not at the table. We are not of one mind on your question, sir, and I think you know that.
That's correct.
Dave Puglia
But, but I think this goes to the point that it is a, it's a matter of fact-specific situational circumstances. My colleagues in the Southeast have made a very compelling case, and I think that they have availed themselves of some of the, of the trade tools that we have currently on the books. I would point, for example, to the tomato suspension agreement, which was a quasi-adjudicatory process that found Mexico to be dumping illegally product in the United States.
Can you say that again?
Dave Puglia
They found Mexico to be dumping illegally into the United States. I'm sure it was recorded. And as you know, the suspension agreement has been terminated, and there is now a 17% tariff as a result on Mexican tomatoes into the United States. And so I think as we look at 300 plus different crops, many of which are going across the border both ways with value-add process along the way, I think you have to look at each case in a very specific way. And I think that there are regional implications that vary across the country.
Austin Scott
Trade is important, and it needs to be competitive and balanced. It is different by region, and it's different by the size of grower as well. The Western growers have many that grow on both sides of the border, and Mexico is a country that is our neighbor, and we need those good trade relationships. Ms. Swain, I want to move to you. As you know, I represent South Georgia.
The timber prices, specifically Southern pine, is way down. You shared in your testimony that US forest industry has experienced 35 pulp mill closures, many of which are in my state of Georgia, resulting in 800 million in annual forest revenue losses. Additionally, the US pulp industry has seen an 18% year-over-year decline in exports to Mexico. What meaningful changes could be made in USMCA to better assist the US forest industry, specifically with trade with Mexico?
Kristin Sawin
Thank you, Mr. Scott. I want to be careful to not attribute the pulp mill closures primarily to trade policy because that would be a little bit misleading. The closures reflect a long-term structural decline in domestic demand for pulp and paper products. So this is kind of a market problem, not a trade problem.
We don't think that USMCA is necessarily the right tool for addressing mill closures or the material that used to go to the mills, which is the forest landowner issue that I represent. We think the right tool for that is fixing the renewable fuel standard to create domestic demand for that low-value wood that these mills used to absorb, and that is NAFO's top domestic legislative priority, and it costs the federal government nothing.
Austin Scott
I agree with you on the renewable fuel standard issue. I don't agree with you on some of the other comments there, but that's just differences of respectful differences of opinion. I will say this, the European Union deforestation regulation in my last 15 minutes is one of those non-tariff trade barriers that is an extremely unfair burden that has been put on major industries in our states. Would you at least agree with me with that?
Kristin Sawin
Absolutely, and I think you will see that the EUDR, colloquially referred to, is a part of my written testimony. It puts a significant compliance burden on US growers and producers.
Speaker 18
Yes ma'am, and my time is expired, but I think it's interesting that the European Union has exempted some of their own countries from compliance with the EUDR.
Alma Adams
The gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman of North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. I want to bring our attention back to the founding principles that made this agreement necessary. The USMCA was founded to be a mutually beneficial win for North American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses, and its intent is to bring greater overall relations and unity between North American partners, Canada and Mexico. However, we now entered a period where this deal, if not renewed with reforms, could do more harm than good because of this administration's ruthless trade agenda, which includes using tariffs or threat of them to force compliance and as a punitive foreign policy tool to achieve domestic policy objectives. I represent North Carolina, and North Carolina alone, the USMCA has supported over 300,000 jobs through exports.
Of these jobs, 36,000 and more were in my district, so I do understand the importance of the agreement, not only to the great state of North Carolina, but to my constituents in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The USMC is meant to be as good to our families as it appears on paper. So let me start with you, Mr. Harrington, according to data from USDA, North Carolina is the country's 13th largest agricultural exporting state, shipping $4.5 billion in domestic agricultural exports abroad. In 2025, Canada was the state's largest export market with $8.6 billion in exported goods. North Carolina also exported $5.3 billion worth of goods to Mexico in the same year.
So without a strong trade agreement, North Carolina's exports to Canada and Mexico could face millions in extra tariffs and extra taxes. So what are the potential immediate risks to agriculture supply chains and the credibility of American farmers in leading agricultural states such as North Carolina if this renewal is postponed for the 16-year renewal, if the 16 or the 16-year renewal is not ratified?
Neil Harrington
Thank you very much, Congressman Adams. Absolutely, your question hits on really some important points. I think certainly for North Carolina growers, producers, farmers, the agreement has been critical. What has also been critical is investment in the state from Canadian and Mexican companies because of these integrated supply chains that have created jobs.
I think the bottom line for us is that the agreement has really created certainty in terms of establishing rules of the road that companies can depend on. And that's why we're so focused on another 16 years of renewal for this because that's the certainty that companies need. And that really translates having all of you put that together and it forms a virtuous circle that benefits at the end of the day North Carolina consumers and consumers across the country for with reduced cost.
Alma Adams
Okay, so clearly the more significant consequences will manifest over time. Nonetheless, individuals in my district who depend on agriculture imports and exports must be able to strategize for their future rather than remain subject to uncertainty. Now Mr. Shrum, US farm trade is still running a deficit that's currently 19.7 billion in the first few months of this year and estimated to to climb to about 50 million by the by the end of the year. For North Carolina, that national deficit hits close to home. My state leads the country in sweet potato production, ranks third in pork production, yet our farmers are absorbing high operational costs while trying to stay competitive across borders.
So given that record deficit, what specific enforcement tools should the US advocate for in 2026 USMCA review to keep Canada and Mexico committed to American agricultural markets rather than turning to competitors like Brazil or the European Union?
Michael Schump
Thank you for that question. I think that the the most important thing for the meat industry in the US is to maintain USMCA as it currently is. If we were to withdraw or make significant changes that would undermine the agreement, that would definitely give countries like China, Brazil, the European Union more access to those markets, which would undermine our ability to export there. China Canada and Mexico would turn to those export markets and that would only increase our trade deficit. For the meat industry, the way you turn around the deficit is to the agricultural trade deficit is to ensure a strong, healthy, vibrant, long-term USMCA.
Speaker 20
Well thank you very much. I only have six seconds, I'm going to yield back and I'll send my question to you Mr. Harrington. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Don Bacon
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon for five minutes.
Thank you very much. I appreciate all of you being here today and your testimony and taking questions. My first question is to Mr. Harrington. If you could just briefly characterize, has USMCA been great for our exports and great for our economy?
Neil Harrington
Absolutely Congressman. We've seen the I think a 25% growth in exports over the last of the six years that USMCA's been in effect.
Don Bacon
So it's very important for us in my view to get it renewed. The president has negotiated quote from his feedback about 19 agreements that are more verbal. I think it's important that he get this on paper, we get agreements, get them approved through Congress so that we can start leveraging these agreements because I don't see enhancements right now in our exports whether it's corn, soybeans, beef, pork. But are we see we haven't seen any uptick in our exports on these verbal agreements that the president has had during these these tariff negotiations. Have you seen any impact?
The reciprocal agreements sir?
Right.
Neil Harrington
The reciprocal agreements I think I would characterize them as kind of too early to tell. Most of them are you know a month or two old, a little bit more.
Don Bacon
So we need to get these on paper and get them in Congress and formalize them because it doesn't do any good when the next president comes in and they and they get ripped up. So we we gotta we gotta turn this into action in my view. Mr. Light, if I may, you were talking a little bit about dairy and some of the issues there in the USMCA. Tell me if I'm wrong or if I got this right. I understand that the USMCA has provisions that allows Canada to have some protectionist measures on dairy and and in turn they gave us some on wood.
Is that true?
Michael Lichte
I guess as it relates to the the impact on wood I'm not aware of that. But in terms of what we were able to access, yes, we were given the ability to fulfill some quota limits. However, it's just they have not been fully used to this point. And we look for ways to be able to more fully fill those quota and be able to provide the consumers in that country American dairy products that can fill their needs.
Don Bacon
I'm of the view that we got to renegotiate this part of the USMCA, but I don't really blame Canada for what they're doing because it's written into the current agreement, just as it is for us on wood. Though I think this is an area that we can make better with a five-year extension. Back to Mr. Harrington, if I may. I have a lot of businesses in Omaha that I work with, I represent Omaha, and they're telling me some of the anger that they're hearing from Canadian counterparts in response to some of the President's comments about the 51st state. I think our tourism is down in half.
They're canceling contracts. What are you seeing at the Chamber right now with our economic relationship with Canada?
Neil Harrington
It's been strained. It's, I think you characterize the the impact on Brand USA in Canada very correctly in saying it's it's it's been a very challenging set of circumstances for our brands there, our companies operating in Canada. Also, as in some of your districts here, I'm sure you see convention and visitors bureau numbers down from Canadian travelers. The numbers are down. So this is something that we are very focused on in trying to get this review completed and the negotiations completed because Brand USA is.
Don Bacon
I'm sort of an old school Republican, a Reagan Republican. We're blessed to have an ally up north with the longest undefended border and we we have had great trade and I just don't see where these slights and and talking down to our neighbor has been helpful at all. I don't see it's gained us one one advantage. One last question for Mrs. Buyer, excuse me, and Mr. Shump. How has global tariffs affected your industries?
Are you seeing pushback?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question. I think, you know, tariffs can certainly distort the market and prices go down a lot faster than they pop back up. So to your point, written long-term trade agreements will give us the stability to be able to make investments and endure for the next generation.
Michael Schump
I'll just add that what's been critical for us is all of the USMCA exemptions. So for any compliant product like meat and livestock, they have been exempted from all the tariff actions and so we would recommend that those be continued because that's been critical for our farmers, ranchers, and meat poultry packers and processors. Thank you for that.
Don Bacon
I'll just close and I appreciate your your feedback. You know, Republicans have long supported like pinpointed tariffs if somebody's treating us unfairly, but we haven't supported global tariffs since the 1930s. It goes against Milton Friedman, it goes against Adam Smith, and I just think it's we've learned free trade, if it's fair, is is the best for consumers. And with that I yield.
Jahana Hayes
Gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, for five minutes.
Thank you. The USMCA is critically important to my state and my district. I'm from Connecticut and trade with Canada and Mexico supports nearly 30,000 jobs in the district and more than 156,000 jobs across Connecticut.
Together, our two North American trading partners purchase more than $1 billion in goods and services from my district and $5.5 billion from the entire state each year, making the USMCA critically important to our local economy. With the scheduled review of the USMCA approaching, it's important to recognize what the agreement has provided for: stability. The predictability of USMCA is essential for export planning, production decisions, and investments for businesses and industries relying on cross-border supply chains. But the on-and-off tariff approach of President Trump has that President the on-and-off tariff approach that President Trump has taken has led to price fluctuations and unpredictable market conditions. At a time when household budgets are tight, the USMCA is especially crucial as it helps support affordability by keeping North American trade predictable and stable for consumers as well as businesses.
My question is for Mr. Harrington. You mentioned that the US Chamber of Commerce supports trade policies to make the United States the best place in the world to invest, build, hire, and innovate. How have the tariff policies implemented by this administration impacted the work of the chamber that the work that the chamber is doing to achieve these goals?
Neil Harrington
Thank you, Congressman. Duty-free trade has, as you well said, has served North America and Connecticut extraordinarily well. That's 30 years of since since NAFTA came into force. It's the the chamber is very clear, has been very clear in recognizing something one of my colleagues said, it is it is important to recognize that the exemption of of USMCA compliant goods from tariffs has been an important step forward, certainly for our broader economy, for processors, growers, and consumers and down the line. But these the tariffs, specifically Section 232 tariffs that remain, are incredibly damaging both to businesses and and manufacturers, hugely important and and consequential in the in the agricultural packaging and food packaging.
40% of canned good cost is represented in the the aluminum itself. So tariffs on our partners such as Canada, who provide 80% of of imported aluminum, are are harmful to our economy. The chamber's been clear about that. And so that's why with this review, we are, as I said in my opening remarks, we are very clear that duty-free trade exclusively needs to return to to North America in the USMCA context.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. Canada and Mexico are not only our top trading partners, but we make things together, creating a highly integrated supply chain across a wide range of industries. For example, Connecticut imports certain types of metals like copper, nickel, titanium, zinc, and lead, making up the largest portion of its imports from Mexico, over 61%. Connecticut families rely on these imported metals to produce manufactured goods, including machinery, aerospace, and aviation parts, which account for more than 92% of all goods exported from our state, and Canada is the primary destination for these exports. Again, Mr. Harrington, if USMCA is not reauthorized, what kinds of imports do you expect do you expect to see in a state like Connecticut, which serves as an intermediary in cross-border supply chains?
Not imports, impacts, I'm sorry.
Neil Harrington
Yeah, I think, you know, I mentioned in my opening remarks, you know, the the criticality of both Mexico and Canada in providing the US the intermediate goods, especially in metals. Your metals example is well taken. In that we can't either supply ourselves or are not affordable to produce in this country. And so that's why, again, we're so we at the chamber are so focused on ensuring that this review leads to a return of of complete tariff-free trade to North America.
Tracey Mann
I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady yields back. And now I'll recognize Mr. Mann from Kansas for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here today. I represent the first district of Kansas, which is one of the largest ag-producing districts in the country. I can wrestle with my friend here from Iowa if it's the largest or second largest, but but the point is we raise a lot of ag products. We and we've got to have markets, both domestic and and foreign, for these ag products.
We also, by the way, have to have a great transportation network to get these products, you know, out of the fields, out of feed yards, you know, to the mouths that that are going to consume them. I appreciate we're having this conversation. I think we ought to remind everybody, you know, this USMCA was a 16-year deal and there was a six-year review period built in, which is incredibly important because I think too often we enter into these trade deals, there's no review period, and so we look up after a few years and realize we are being taken advantage of. So I'm glad we're having this conversation. I'm glad this review time was was built in to prompt some some important conversation.
Many times what happens is these non-tariff trade barriers enter in, as we all know, as example, you know, non-GMO corn going into Mexico, right? So we have to have an opportunity to do a reset and that's exactly what we're doing. I think it's healthy, it's good. I think the American farmer's going to benefit greatly in the long term by doing this. Just a handful of quick questions.
First off for you, Mr. Lichty. And I was at DFA a couple weeks ago, had Under Secretary for Trade Luke Lindberg there. The coldest and best milk in the country is at DFA's headquarters if you're ever passing through. I know I've taken the chairman there as well. No doubt about that.
But my question for you, in your testimony you share that export demand now accounts for 17% of total milk production. US milk production trends continue to outpace domestic consumption patterns, necessitating exports. What percent of all US dairy exports go to Mexico and what percent go to Canada? And how important are these markets to support our domestic milk production?
Michael Lichte
Well, first off, Congressman Mann, it's great to see you again. Appreciate the chance to be here with the committee today. I think in Chairman Thompson's opening comments he referenced that the combination of Mexico and Canada represents around 40% of the export value, with Mexico being the largest of those two. Extremely impactful, those trading partners that we have. And, you know, look for that they create such a foundation for the growth we see in milk supply that we are able to go access additional markets beyond that.
But critically important to maintain that because of the over-reliance we have of our milk to those consumers in those two countries.
Speaker 26
Great. And similar question for you, Mrs. Byers, regarding soybeans. You know, soybeans are the top export crop in American agriculture. 2024-2025 my data says we exported 68.7 million whole soybeans, soybean meal, and soybean oil to foreign markets, accounting for 58% of production. What percent of US exports are purchased by Canada and Mexico and how important are these markets to the US soy production?
Speaker 25
Thank you for the question, Congressman. 13% together is what we end up exporting to Canada and Mexico at a value of 4 billion.
Tracey Mann
And how does that, how does that compare to other export markets, China and otherwise?
Jamie Beyer
So China is a 9 billion dollar market. So Mexico is our number two, very important.
Speaker 24
Okay. And then lastly, for you, Mr. Schump, on the, on the meat side of things, meat and poultry exports support a broad ag supply chain as we all know, whether it be fertilizer and fish bait production that rely on animal byproducts or increased demand for feed crops such as corn and soybeans that go into the, you know, the livestock that consumes that and then of course is harvested and exported. Can you explain how exports of US meat and poultry products generate economic benefits across the broader North American ag industry?
Michael Schump
Yeah, absolutely, that's a great question. So we export 25% of our pork production, 15% of beef and 15% of poultry production. So a decent amount of what we produce is exported, but a lot of what's exported is not consumed in high levels here in the US. So that helps bring carcass, bring value back to producers, American farmers and ranchers who are able to send some of those products that see higher demand elsewhere. It also generates additional revenue and income for our corn and soybean farmers, hundreds of millions of dollars, 2.1 billion dollars on the corn side.
And to your point on transportation, it supports truckers and transportation networks and ports. So it supports jobs all across the country.
Speaker 29
Great. Well I see my time's expiring, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all again for being here and again, I'm glad that we're doing this review period at this very important time for American agriculture and I yield back my six seconds. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Shontel Brown
I thank the gentleman for yielding back his six seconds. I now recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Brown, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. For farmers, producers, workers, and communities across the country, trade policy is not theoretical. It determines whether farmers have stable markets, whether producers can compete on a level playing field, whether workers are protected, and whether communities have a real chance to grow. We know what happens when trade policies fail to protect domestic production. From NAFTA to lax enforcement of unfair trade policies to distortion from competitors like China, too many communities experience plant closures, lost industrial capacity, and weakened supply chains, including the agricultural processing, transportation, and manufacturing networks that farmers rely on.
And farmers are also harmed when trade policy becomes unpredictable and unstable, when broad tariff actions trigger retaliation, raise input costs, disrupt export markets, and make it harder for producers to plan the future. Either we support a rule-based, enforceable North American trade policy that gives farmers, workers, and businesses certainty, or a chaotic, ham-handed tariff policy that harms farmers, raises costs for consumers, and gives China and other competitors an opening to capture market share. The USMCA was designed to be different, a stronger, fairer, and more enforceable North American trade framework that supports farmers and ranchers, protects workers, strengthens domestic industries, and helps communities like Cleveland compete in the 21st century economy. So Mr. Puglia, Puglia? All right.
Can you share what labor enforcement tools should be strengthened in the USMCA review to ensure American farmers, growers, producers, and workers are not undercut by weaker or under-enforced labor standards, and how do we make sure the USMCA supports domestic agriculture production and food supply chains rather than creating incentives for production, processing, or investment to shift outside the United States?
Dave Puglia
Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I'll refer to the Independent Mexico Labor Expert Board, which was created by Congress as part of the USMCA Implementation Act itself, and that board has periodically reported to the US Department of Labor their assessment of compliance or lack thereof with USMCA's labor provisions in Mexico. I'll just give you a couple of quick suggestions that that panel has made that we would concur with.
One of their findings is that the number of inspectors, labor inspectors in Mexico should be increased. They found that for the population of the workforce in Mexico, approximately 60.5 million workers, there should be around 4,000 inspectors. There are only 660. So that is seems an obvious area where Mexico could step up its its commitment to compliance with USMCA. They also suggest expanding access to trainings for federal and state-level labor inspectors on child labor protocols to ensure that guidelines related to identifying, sanctioning, and referring for criminal investigation of child labor violations are followed.
And then finally, I think transparency is important. The the panel suggests collection and publication of information on the number of routine and unannounced inspections and of course of matters referred for criminal prosecution. And so I think those and other suggestions made by the panel would all help remove some of the unfair practices taking place in Mexico that undercut American production in terms of cost of labor.
Shontel Brown
Briefly, how should Congress think about USMCA not just as a trade agreement, but as part of a broader economic and national security strategy to reduce dependence on China, protect farmers and producers, rebuild domestic capacity, and ensure communities like Cleveland are not left behind again?
Michael Schump
Appreciate the question. So as I had mentioned on the economic side, it there's no replacement for USMCA. Our farmers, ranchers, and meat and poultry packers and processors rely on that integrated network and the meat product and livestock trade that happens across our borders often multiple times. But Canada and Mexico either have trade agreements with or are negotiating with China, Brazil, the European Union. So our competitors and our adversaries, if we were to walk away from USMCA, these countries would surely gain more market share at our expense.
And so our ask is that USMCA be preserved and continued so that we remain the dominant supplier in Canada and Mexico and that we continue to have unfettered access, preferential treatment in those markets compared to those other countries.
Shontel Brown
Thank you so much. As we review the USMCA, we should strive for trade policies that maintain stable markets for farmers and producers, strengthen labor enforcement, build resilient supply chains, and rebuild domestic production rather than hollow it out. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Randy Feenstra
The lady's time has expired. I recognize Mr. Feenstra for five minutes.
I just want to thank Chairman Thompson for holding this hearing today. I think it's very, very important. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I want to thank you for your testimony. It was very impressive. And when you read through it, we understand that USMCA remains the gold standard for international trade policy.
And for one of the largest integrated economic blocks, Mexico, Canada, US, this provides us a a roadmap for the most important regional supply chains in the world. And I'm excited. I mean, you know, people can can criticize or whatever, but to revisit and to reset this trade deal is paramount. I think it's just a great thing that that we're doing. So that being said, you know, one of our areas that makes USMCA incredibly strong for our farmers is the facilitation of biotechnology and the SPS chapters that prevent non-science-based trade barriers.
However, as we look for targeted improvements in these chapters, there are opportunities to better align pesticide maximum residue limits with Codex standards and further enforce barriers to trade biotechnology. Mr. Buyer, Ms. Buyer, sorry. Could you quickly explain the importance of USMCA assessing critical inputs for your farm and the benefits of maintaining strong SPS biotechnology provisions?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Congressman. Certainly as if if we can be more consistent among the three trading partners without impeding everyone's regulatory authorities. You know, on the farm everything we do from the start to finish is highly regulated and so we rely on experts at EPA, certainly we rely on experts, you know, with the FDA for our final products. And so our our systems are heavily integrated with science and that doesn't need to be replicated, it doesn't need to be concurrently run in other countries to accept our products and to accept our our varieties. And so as much as these systems can be efficient and I think one of the interesting parts about USMCA is the commitment to sharing information and transparency.
And that's something that we benefit from.
Randy Feenstra
Yeah, I agree. I mean, sharing of information and as long as it's factual, right? I mean, as long as it's research tested, research based. And to me that is the critical criteria for all three countries that we embrace. And and hopefully through the reset and and through this review we can continue to go down that path.
You know, Mexico is constant is consistently one of the most important export markets for Iowa pork producers, which is why maintaining a fair and rule-based trade relationship is so important. Mexico is one of the most important markets for the world when it comes to US pork. Recently, we've seen Mexico initiate anti-dumping and countervailing duties AD and CVD CVD investigation into US hams and shoulders. While every country has the right to enforce trade laws, these investigations must be based on facts, not used for political leverage. Mr. Shump, can you discuss why maintaining a fair rule-based trade relationship under USMCA is critical for American pork producers?
Michael Schump
Thank you for that question. And and to be clear, we view Mexico's investigation into those pork products as spurious. We don't see there being any merit to those claims. And so but and our and our members and the industry has had to undertake expensive process to address Mexico's concerns. But in general, maintaining USMCA is going to be critical for our pork market access and we believe that USMCA has the consultative mechanisms in place that can address any concerns and they should be done in those ways, not through this type of an investigation.
Randy Feenstra
Yeah, I agree 100%. Absolutely. And if I think 40% of our our export in in the pork industry goes to Mexico. I mean it's very, very significant.
That is correct.
Randy Feenstra
Yeah. So so we've got to maintain it, but we also have to work with them to not have these issues come up. I got 46 seconds left quick, Mr. Lochney. Talk about Mexico and US dairy. This is an opportunity for us.
You know, we've always talked about Canada, but US and Mexico have a great dairy opportunity here. Can you just talk about that very briefly?
Michael Lichte
Yeah, I would say it has had a great opportunity continues to see two and a half billion dollars of dairy exports are going into the Mexican market and it's one that we want to continue to preserve and also try to offset any type of restrictions that we would have from European trade agreements when it comes to common cheese names.
Speaker 32
That's exactly right. Thank you so much. Thanks again for your testimony everyone and I yield back.
Sharice Davids
I thank the gentleman, yields back and I recognize the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Davids for five minutes.
Thank you Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA is critically important to the state of Kansas.
Kansas's two largest export markets are Mexico and Canada, and across the board, exported Kansas goods supported an estimated 55,000 jobs in our state. However, as we've heard, farmers are currently being just crushed by the administration's tariff policies and resulting trade war. Nationally, over the last crop year, farm losses have reached $28 billion, and farm income is projected to drop even further. The tariffs have also raised costs for everyday people, including on groceries. And in the wake of this chaotic tariff policy, the USMCA has provided a small silver lining for folks.
The agreement has provided businesses and producers with trade certainty and market access. And, you know, amidst this chaotic and irrational trade policy that we've seen, it's estimated that USMCA's lower tariffs have saved American households approximately $700 annually on groceries. You know, I was here when we negotiated this, President Trump negotiated and signed USMCA into law. I was proud to vote for it. I believe it is a critically important tool and that the joint review process leads to the continuation of the USMCA.
Ms. Bayer, I'm going to come to you first. In public comment that was submitted to USTR, the American Soybean Association stated that the industry wouldn't survive an additional tariff battle with Canada and Mexico. And I'm kind of going to follow up on the ranking member's question to, you know, given that Mexico is the second largest importer of American soybeans, can you give some insight into how USMCA helps to keep input prices lower, or conversely, how the termination of USMCA might exacerbate what is already a volatile and historically expensive input environment, I mean?
Jamie Beyer
Sure, thank you, Congresswoman. So we're talking both on the expense side and on the profit side. I think, you know, we can't, we're constantly being outpriced by Brazil. So our land costs, our machinery costs, Brazil can beat us. They're at $200 less an acre.
They have room for mistakes, we don't. We're on the edge as far as profit goes. So every trade agreement is important, including that with our closest neighbors. As far as inputs go, personally, fertilizer for my soybeans comes out of Canada, so it's a direct relationship and is, you know, sort of price sensitive. We've been seeing double-digit increases in all of our inputs is what's affecting us today.
And so even though individually each of these inputs between pesticides, fertilizer, seed, machinery are significant on their own, it's being compounded right now. And so those pressures are being accelerated. And so positive press for USMCA and review is really important to our industry.
Sharice Davids
Mr. Harrington, I was hoping to come to you next. I certainly appreciate the discussion of integrated supply chains and benefits for American consumers in your written testimony. And to follow on another of my colleagues, they took all my questions. But actually it gives the opportunity, you mentioned aluminum and the increased costs when it comes to canned goods and that sort of thing. I was hoping you could kind of expand on that with potash and tinplate and just if you could explain a bit about how that's impacted as well.
Thank you. 200 less per acre, that's significant.
Neil Harrington
Of course, thank you Congressman. Yeah, in one of our biggest concerns at the outset before USMCA compliant goods were declared duty-free was certainly the tariff on potash. As I think we've talked about, I think 80% of the potash we import we import from Canada. And so our farmers who faced tariffs on the export side, the potash piece was a huge component of their costs on the input piece. And so they were getting squeezed as I think Ranking Member Craig well said at the outset.
So I think the fact that that's exactly why we have to keep, so most potash that's USMCA compliant now is remains duty-free. It has to stay that way. We have to, this is and the same pivoting to the aluminum piece and the tinplate piece. This is a critical component in ag and food packaging. As I mentioned, it constitutes 40% of the cost of the product in this packaging.
And with Canada as a key producer and provider of aluminum at below market prices in most cases when it's tariff-free, that it's a critical supplier to reduce costs for producers and consumers.
Speaker 34
Gentlelady's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Taylor, for five minutes.
Troy Balderson
Thank you for your sacrifice and your expertise. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you witnesses, more than usual number of witnesses. It's great to have you with us today. Most of my district borders on the Ohio River. Agricultural trade has been and will continue to be vital to the farmers in Southern Ohio.
It's my district's primarily agricultural with 11,000 family farms. Canada and Mexico continue to be the two largest export markets for our crops, and I anticipate that will continue with the renewal of this agreement. Our neighbors to the north and south have been consistent partners in trade, but we should always remain concerned about what would happen if we didn't have those markets. We've seen time and again that when we lose market share, other countries jump in and take our place, and it's almost impossible to get back. We saw that with Brazil and China in 2000.
US soybean sales to China were almost double what Brazil sent them, but today it's Brazil supplying nearly 70% of China's total soybeans. So Ms. Beyer, hypothetically, where would Mexico and Canada turn if this vital trade agreement went away?
Jamie Beyer
Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. You know, at the end of the day, what I see when we're visiting customers is that they're looking for the highest quality they can afford. So sometimes it's a race to the bottom on who's going to supply those beans. In the US, when it comes to Mexico and Canada, you know, we have the advantage of our rail system. So thankfully with this 16-year agreement, you know, that stabilizes some of those trade routes and we can improve and strengthen our own transportation system.
And that's to the benefit of other sectors too.
Speaker 35
Thank you. Mr. Harrington, the more diverse our market options are, the better situated we will be to negotiate the best USMCA for America. You have extensive experience up and down the Western Hemisphere. As we think about future trading partners, what countries do you see as most friendly and most likely to be great partners as we go forward?
Neil Harrington
Thank you for the question, Congressman. We're spending a lot of time focused on Argentina right now because of some of the reciprocal opportunities and the market-oriented opportunities that the market-oriented reforms that Argentina is advancing. We want to further leverage the free trade agreements that we have with Colombia, with the CAFTA-DR countries. I think we want to stabilize the relationship with Brazil right now, it's an important US trade partner as well. But I think 12 of our 20 FTA partners are in the Western Hemisphere and that speaks to the importance certainly to your question of why for US exporters these markets are important.
Troy Balderson
Thank you. Mr. Shump, you've stated a few times today that any change to the USMCA would negatively impact the market for US meat producers. At the same time, producers have many, the producers in my district have numerous issues with the current arrangement. Is there really no way the USMCA can fairly be improved for American meat producers?
Michael Schump
The meat, so for us the USMCA has again provided that $8 billion worth of trade, $16 billion when you count livestock. So we think that the improvements to sanitary, phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, other provisions in USMCA have really helped bolster our trade throughout North America and we want to see all of that maintained. The administration is using this as a blueprint in other regions of the world and we appreciate and support that. The one addition we would suggest for USMCA has been brought up as well on common terms, common meat names. USTR is negotiating this in other markets and we would like to see that added as a letter to the agreement because that would protect trade in products like bologna, salami, etc. to our North American partners.
Speaker 35
Gotcha. Okay, well thank you. And just generally to the panel, is it fair to say that Brazil is our biggest threat to our participation in global trade agreements in our world of agriculture? Is there someone else that rivals their attempts to supplant us as suppliers to other countries? Is that fair to say or?
Michael Lichte
Well, I'd say from a dairy perspective, I think the European Union and New Zealand are also major exporters from a global standpoint, so those would be ones we'd look at from a dairy perspective.
Michael Schump
Same on the meat side, European Union on pork in particular, Brazil definitely on the beef front.
Speaker 39
EU on geographic indicators too as some of the other members have said, a real problem because they export those to other trade agreements.
Speaker 38
Okay. All right. Well again, thank you all very much for your time. I appreciate you being here. Yield back, Chairman.
Eric Sorensen
Thank you, gentleman. Gentleman yields back. I'll recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for fighting on behalf of America's farm families, sincerely thank you. I'm proud to live in the hometown of Deere & Company. And I hear from farmers all across the country about the incredible uncertainty that exists today, largely caused by an administration that is failing to solve serious issues in the ag sector. I hear from farmers each day about the high cost of diesel fuel that's needed in their green and yellow tractors, all because of an unwanted war in the Middle East.
They can't take much more of this. In 2025, Trump's tariffs cost Illinoisans nearly 9 billion dollars. Nationwide over 133 billion dollars. And that means that these tariffs are now a 1700 dollar tax on each and every household. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that these costs will increase by 43 percent this year to 2500 dollars.
That's on top of grocery costs, healthcare costs, and insurance costs. I'll say it again. Today's farmers are being asked to just make do when all they need is certainty. China's always been our largest market for soybeans, but according to recent reports, the United States has lost 14.9 billion dollars in lost exports between March 2025 and February of this year as a result of Chinese retaliatory tariffs. That's why the North American market is so important.
Illinois is the top soybean producing state in the country and number two in corn production. Ag is in our Illinois DNA. The USMCA trade agreement is a vital part of providing the certainty that we need. Mexico is the top importer of American grown corn. Nearly 35 percent of all corn grown in Illinois goes to Mexico.
And Canada is our top importer of ethanol, purchasing anywhere between 30 and 50 percent of all American ethanol every year. Canada and Mexico combined purchase more than 4 billion dollars worth of American grown soybeans, making it the largest national agricultural export. To say this is essential is the understatement of the year. As we get closer to the July deadline, I appreciate your willingness to come to the committee, especially it's cold in here, there's a cold front that's come through, I'm pretty sure. I appreciate your willingness to be here to help us do what's right for our closest neighbors, the hardest working people in America.
Mrs. Beyer, I'm going to begin with you. You mentioned in your testimony the Chinese 10 percent tariff on US soybeans, it causes our product to not be as competitive as South American grown beans. With the predictability of USMCA, what does this mean for our soybean market?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Congressman. Since you brought up iron, we run green on my farm and we recently had an autonomous tractor with tillage equipment attached demoed. That's a million dollar deal. Wow. You know, and so when we're thinking about the types of investments we need to make on the farm versus what we want on the farm versus what we have any chance at affording, you know, these are big decisions and so these long-term trade agreements help stabilize those sorts of plans.
Eric Sorensen
I want to piggyback on what my colleague from Kansas, Ms. Davids, had said. How important is it that we bring fertilizer costs down and then we produce fertilizer in America?
Jamie Beyer
Yeah, thank you for the attention to that. I think it's interesting to think of both the cost of the fertilizer, the production, and the timing. And so the sort of the latest round of panic in farm country really highlighted that there's limited production, you know, scarce natural resources and we have to be really careful at the interconnectedness of sort of the global ag economy.
Eric Sorensen
I'm going to open this up to everybody and my time is limited. If the USMCA were not renewed or if it were altered or we lost those zero tariff access, you know, what would this mean for our economy in your opinions?
Speaker 41
I think that says it all. If we don't have that duty-free access, it could be potentially devastating.
Eric Sorensen
So you all would agree that it would be devastating to our economy, our ag economy. You know, we have to make sure that our trading partners are dealt with fairly. Yes, we have to make sure that we have healthy competition, but our farmers and agribusiness need certainty today. I look forward to working with my caucus and with my Republican friends to make sure that an extension makes sense for American workers and keeps farmers competitive. Thank you all so much, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Monica De La Cruz
Gentleman's time has expired. And now recognize Ms. De La Cruz from Texas for five minutes.
Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My district sits on the border of Mexico and the United States, so the USMCA agreement is of high priority for our area. Not only to make sure that we include the 1944 water treaty into the USMCA agreement, but to make sure that it benefits our local South Texas communities. There's so many, so many things that we could talk about, but I'm going to ask Ms. Beyer, in your testimony you explained that the United States and Canada have an agreement allowing grain to cross the border without reinspection.
That same agreement does not exist between the United States and Mexico, resulting in higher transportation costs for US exports. What would be the benefits of aligning the reinspection policies across all three countries for transportation of ag commodities by freight rail?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Anytime there's reinspection of grain railcars, it's going to add time and delay. And USMCA, you know, one of the purposes of it is to discourage arbitrary barriers. So in general, we'd be looking for, you know, demonstrated need for those sorts of things. It does establish a working group for cooperation, and I think that's also one of the benefits of this agreement.
Monica De La Cruz
But it establishes a working group, however there is not an agreement with Mexico. So what has been some of the challenges faced by not having an agreement with Mexico, but having an agreement with Canada?
Jamie Beyer
So I'll give an example of the phytosanitary. So Mexico has a different standard for the types of foreign material that comes in. And if a railcar needs to be fumigated, it's a two-day delay and seventy thousand dollars. So that's, that's an example of the real cost.
Monica De La Cruz
So it would be an increase in cost, is that what I'm hearing? Okay, wonderful. There is an important issue that is happening in South Texas, and that is the New World screwworm, which we have found some detections in South Texas. Two of the three have been in South Texas, in my area. Mr. Schupp, in your testimony you highlight the trade imbalances between the United States and Mexico with respect specifically to cattle, cattle being an important industry in our area.
Can you explain how imports from Mexico have historically helped supplement the domestic herd?
Michael Schump
Yes, thank you for that question. I just want to also reiterate that New World screwworm is not a food safety issue, that meat products remain safe to eat, and we welcome the work that's being done to address the issue on behalf of the industry. Our top priority is the health of the herd here in the US, and that's at, and that's number one.
So Mexico typically does ship 1.2 to 1.3 million head of cattle to the US per year. Obviously that has not been occurring because the border has been closed the last year due to screwworm. But most of that cattle comes and goes into feedlots and feeding operations to support American farmers and ranchers and that helps make sure that those feedlots can operate at full capacity. And so Canada is the only other live cattle supplier to the US that is logistically viable. Um so without Mexico it's been a really big hit to the industry.
Monica De La Cruz
And that being said and we have a couple more seconds here is USDA has taken a number of steps to prepare for the New World screwworm outbreak in the United States including a playbook um beginning construction of a domestic sterile fly production in my area Mission Texas and increasing sterile fly production in Mexico. What are you hearing from your members about the threat imposed by the New World screwworm?
Michael Schump
Well we are supportive of those efforts to address screwworm so the sterile fly production sterile fly dispersal as well as other innovations that are currently underway and our members are looking forward to working with you with USDA to ensure that we can eradicate New World screwworm.
Thank you I yield back.
Speaker 45
I thank the gentlelady she yields back. Now recognize Mr. Vanman from Virginia for five minutes.
Michael Schump
Thank you Mr. Chairman ranking member. So Mr. Shrumm I'm highly concerned as many of my colleagues are with the impact of the New World screwworm now that multiple cases have been confirmed here in the United States. Two states is that correct?
Correct.
Speaker 47
And so can you just how big is the beef cattle industry in the United States?
Michael Schump
It's very significant. So we have so we represent the meatpackers and processors of of the industry and so the cattle herd just rough order of magnitude sure it's the lowest it's been in 75 years so I think around 80 something million head.
Speaker 48
And so what's that how many billion dollars is that industry any sense?
Speaker 44
12 okay. And um how does the the spread of screwworm affect our relationship with Canada and Mexico when it comes to beef exports?
Michael Schump
That's a really critical point to to raise there because there should not be any impact on our meat exports. The World Organization for Animal Health states that there should be no impact on meat trade. Livestock trade is different so there will likely be impacts on live cattle exports and those will be dealt with between USDA and the different competent authorities but there should be no impact on meat exports or beef exports.
Speaker 51
And what about the the screwworm um how do you anticipate it'll affect it'll impact beef prices?
Michael Schump
There so just to reiterate like I said the cattle herd is the lowest it's been in 75 years and so there are a lot of factors that impact prices. Tight supplies and strong record demand here are are one of those factors and so rebuilding the herd is going to be something that is critical to inject additional supplies into the market. Having screwworm doesn't aid in that process but that is going to be.
But you don't have an you don't have an estimate of of potential impact on the on the price of beef.
Not an exact figure because a lot of different factors impact.
Michael Schump
When you have tighter supplies and strong demand there's the potential that you might see a price increase but I can't say specifically that it would be tied it's too early to tell the impacts of screwworm right now.
Speaker 50
Do you have any sense of how much was spent um by the US government for USAID programs or APHIS on on monitoring screwworm so it didn't get to the United States?
Michael Schump
I don't have a sense of how much was spent on it, but I know that we as the meat industry support APHIS having the resources to respond to New World screwworm also from a trade perspective, since they will be negotiating with our trading partners.
Okay. And so you'd consider restoring, um, fired staff to APHIS as a as a strong step towards eradicating screwworms?
The meat industry supports fully funding USDA and all of the important critical functions, including veterinary services, inspection services, and the like.
And, um, what can Congress do to ensure that the screwworm outbreak can be resolved as quickly as possible?
I'm sorry, did you say Congress, sir? I didn't hear Congress. I think working closely with USDA and ensuring that they have the resources necessary to be able to address this concern would be wonderful for the industry.
Yeah, I'll just say from my perspective, um, the cut to programs like USAID, APHIS, um, by DOJ and and this administration, um, seems penny-wise and pound-foolish at this point when we had a screwworms were eradicated in 1966 and now 60 years later they're back because we cut a few million dollars from a even tens of millions of dollars from a program that affects a $12 billion industry. So, um, I think the sooner we can restore that funding regardless of what agency or department it falls under is is better for our producers. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 52
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orden, for five minutes.
Michael Lichte
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What an opportune time it is to have this hearing, especially during National Dairy Month. I think the USMCA has been a great opportunity for our not only our dairy farmers, but also the producers in northeastern Wisconsin and of course across our great country. It has allowed our market in Mexico to continue to grow and easily cement ourselves as their biggest market. However, Canada continues to undercut the Wisconsin dairy industry.
They have utterly failed to implement what they said and the review process during that, it is of the utmost importance that that's addressed. This is why I led a letter to Ambassador Greer last December with 73 of my colleagues. It was a bipartisan letter, 20 of which are on this great committee, including you, Mr. Chairman, asking the administration to prioritize this exact issue with Canada. I thank all my colleagues who signed on to that letter for doing so, and I would like to submit it for the record here today. Additionally, last month I hosted a roundtable with farmers and cheesemakers in my district on this exact topic.
I want to thank today's witnesses to allow all of us to hear more about the deal's impacts and what else we in Congress can do to ensure that Canada and Mexico follow through on their commitments to provide more certainty for our producers. I'll start with you, Mr. Lichty. I might end with you. We're going to talk dairy. I was proud to co-lead the bipartisan letter that was signed by 74 members of Congress to Ambassador Greer last December, urging the administration to address Canada in the in the joint review.
Wisconsin's home to world-class cheesemakers who depend on fair market conditions both home and abroad. Your testimony shows that the industrial cheese quota Canada committed to under the USMCA saw only 64% utilization. That's over five years, correct? So, which obviously is undercutting our cheesemakers' access to the market. So my question is, what does it mean for cheesemakers' ability to compete if these issues go unresolved through a joint review?
Yes, thank you Congressman. And first off, I agree with you, June is a great month. So I appreciate your comment there. As it relates to specifically cheese and the cheesemakers from the United States, you know, we were given the opportunity to fill a certain volume of quota and we've not been able to do so as you've referenced. I think continuing to find ways to either enforce better use of these would be great, or to even open up the access to retailers, food service providers, or the like, beyond just industrial ingredient manufacturers are ways for us to be able to again use what we were able to get and allow the Canadian companies to live up to the commitments made.
Speaker 55
How can we hold the Canada's feet to the fire better during this review specifically?
Michael Lichte
Yeah, so I would say being able to provide greater, steeper penalties for those that would unuse the quota, the unfilled quota would be one avenue to use.
Let's talk about Mexico. I think there's a lot of wins there. Can you share any success stories with either DFA or specific farmers would be great, that they've had with Mexico over the last six years with the implementation of the USMCA, which has been a big win. Can you tie any of those, like I said, back to farmers?
Yes, so two and a half billion dollars worth of exports have gone to the Mexican marketplace. It is the largest export market for US dairy. So it does have a very direct impact on the milk check that dairy farmers receive each and every month. And I would say it's not just one state. It's many states around this country that have benefited from our exports into the Mexican market.
So clearly we've talked about some great wins with Mexico. Dairy farmers still have concerns. What can we do here in Congress to address, what concerns are those, and what can we do here in Congress to address those concerns?
We need to preserve the market access that we were able to get through NAFTA originally and then doubled down from a USMCA standpoint. I think over the last few years we've seen some movements by the European Union to bring in some restrictive types of policies including common cheese names. And I would say continuing to be able to provide action from a US government standpoint to preserve again what we were able to get including the common, the use of common names.
I'm a little biased, I like dairy a lot. So sorry if I wasn't able to ask any questions of all of you great, great people. Thank you to all of you and appreciate your time here today. I yield back.
Speaker 54
Thank the gentleman, gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal, for five minutes.
Dave Puglia
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all the witnesses for taking time of your busy schedules to be here with us today. Mr. Puglia, it is good to see you again. As you know very well, specialty crops account for a significant portion of agriculture grown in my district on the Central Coast, which is also known as Paradise on Earth. Specialty crops just like other ag sectors depend and thrive on healthy export markets.
Strong and predictable trade relationships provide the certainty growers need to make long-term investments and support jobs throughout the agriculture supply chain. However, since Trump got back into office 2.0, our export market and trade relationships with our neighbors have looked anything but healthy or predictable. Canada has long been an important export destination for US agriculture products and a key market for California growers. Mr. Puglia, why is it important for your industry that the United States normalize trade relations with key partners like Canada?
Thank you Congressman for the question. Good to see you too. I referenced in my earlier comments that Canada and Mexico represent the first and second in terms of rank destinations for exported fresh produce from the United States.
For California specifically, Canada is far and away the number one export destination for our products. I think the one way to capture sort of the essence of your question is to reflect back on both the successes of USMCA in creating that highly predictable stream of commerce between the three countries, but also what happens when there's disruption. Canada, as you may recall, laid down retaliatory tariffs in 2025, to the order of 25% in response to the IEPA tariffs that we imposed on some Canadian products. And those retaliatory tariffs went among other products against fruit such as all citrus, peaches, other stone fruit, melons, some vegetables, tomatoes, green beans, pecans on the tree nut side. And that resulted in loss of market quite immediately.
If you look at the year-over-year data from 2024 to 2025 while those retaliatory tariffs were in effect, for oranges, for example, the US lost 34% of its sales to Canada. Egypt and Morocco picked up the balance. If you look at mandarins, United States lost 28% of its market to Canada. Morocco and Peru picked up the balance. And for peaches, the US lost 18% of its market during that time period year-over-year.
Chile and Mexico picked up the market opportunity. And what we see, as we saw with China, is that when we lose a market for California products or Western US products in the produce sector, and true for others at this table, it's really hard to get that market back. You see others come in and displace us and it's very hard to recreate that dynamic. So I think that it's very, very important that we see USMCA renewed with some important changes so that we don't go back into the situation where these two most reliable trading partners feel compelled from time to time to slap retaliatory tariffs on US ag products.
Thank you. Mr. Puglia, you mentioned in your testimony that while our reliance on imported produce has grown, so has our need for strengthening food safety compliance over foreign produce. Can you give us one or two specific examples of how imported food safety oversight and enforcement should be improved and how should the United States use the USMCA process to secure that?
Again, thank you for the question. I mentioned earlier that in 2023, FDA conducted 11,000 domestic inspections on food safety grounds, only 1,500 of foreign facilities, foreign growers. We need to see those numbers rebalanced when you consider the fact that so much of our produce is imported from abroad, 60% of our fruit, 40% of our vegetables, and the lion's share of that from Mexico. So we specifically in our comments to Ambassador Greer call for USDA to stand up and FDA to stand up a more robust on-farm inspection verification system in Mexican operations. We don't have the same level of concern with respect to Canada, but we do with respect to Mexico.
There have been cases that show dramatically different approaches by the federal government when it comes to a domestic producer with a food safety outbreak versus a Mexican producer. And without going into those details, it is wildly different. And so there's an opportunity to use the MCA renewal process to bring Mexico further along so that we have a more equalized approach to food safety, which of course benefits the consumers we serve.
Neil Harrington
Gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bresnahan, for five minutes.
The USMCA provides the market access that our farmers, ranchers, and producers depend on every day. Canada and Mexico are among our largest agricultural trading partners, and reliable access to those markets helps support farm income, sustain rural jobs, and keep American agriculture competitive. But when I talk with farmers across northeastern Pennsylvania about trade, one word comes up time and time again, and that's certainty. Farming is a long-term business. Producers make decisions months and often years in advance about what to plant, what equipment to purchase, and how to invest in their operations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here this morning.
That is why certainty around surrounding the USMCA review process is so vital. It gives farmers the confidence that they need to plan ahead, manage risk, and continue investing in the future of their farms and their businesses. When trade relationships are predictable, farmers can focus on growing their operations rather than worrying about disruptions to the markets they rely on. A clear and transparent review process helps provide the stability producers need to succeed, compete, and continue feeding our country and the world. So, my first question is for Mr. Harrington.
Could you provide some examples of policies that have disrupted the agreement's intended balance and share any recommendations for the negotiators ahead of the joint review that is scheduled this summer?
Thank you, Congressman. Appreciate the question. The US Chamber, as I think a few of you know, has been very focused on the issue of compliance and enforcement in this agreement. Each of the three countries has work to do in this regard. We are very focused, starting starting with Mexico.
I talked specifically in the ag space about biotechnological approvals, and that goes for the broader health space as well, approvals in in Mexico's agency called COFEPRIS. Certainly, there's challenges in Mexico on energy, which affect our companies. There are challenges in government procurement. And in Canada, we've talked about certainly the ag-specific and the dairy sector, the impediment there. We've talked about we have not talked about some of the real digital trade challenges that Canada is posing.
And then obviously here, in terms of couldn't agree more with you on certainty, on the on the theme of certainty, and we need duty-free duty-free trade back in USMCA to restore that certainty you're talking about for producers, growers, and consumers.
I I appreciate the term of certainty today because that's one thing we hear time and time again is knowing where the goalposts are and knowing how to row the boat towards that same common goal. When you mentioned Mexican energy, what are some of the ideas or shortfalls? Is it all of the all of the above relevant to energy? Is it generation? Is it transmission?
Where do you where do you see the biggest impedance in in actually getting more electrons on the grid?
Yeah, it's a great it's a great question because it impacts so many of our companies working in Mexico. The main issue is is challenging Mexico's attempts to tilt the playing field in in favor of state-owned actors. So you have PEMEX, you have CFE, the electricity provider, which are have put US providers to the back of the line. So that's the first that's the first area is is leveling the playing field. We at the Chamber have been clear that USTR should bring a case.
We've brought this up including in the last administration. We've made the case to the to this this administration to bring a dispute resolution case. I'm I'm more optimistic than I've been that this review process, because of the 53 specific areas that have been put on the table, that it's going that these are going to be addressed because Mexico's committed to USTR to address them as part of the review.
We'll see.
Neil Harrington
I appreciate it. For Mr. Puglia, can you elaborate on the challenges US specialty crop growers are facing from Mexican competition and please provide any recommendations that Congress could be taking to help offset those concerns and how they could be addressed?
Dave Puglia
Thank you for the question. I think there are two different sides of this coin. One is the integrated nature of the fresh produce industry between the three countries and that includes Mexico. Many of my members produce their products in both the United States and Mexico for seasonality reasons being a large share of it. Some of it is cost of production.
California, where most of my members are, is a very high cost of production state. But having said that, the linkages between the countries work pretty well. Where we have called for changes in USMCA that could help American producers of fresh produce vis-à-vis Mexican producers, as mentioned earlier, are in the areas of labor standards enforcement, compliance with USMCA's requirements of Mexico to make good on its commitments in the labor enforcement arena. We've also suggested new provisions to upgrade Mexico's performance on food safety. Particularly FDA needs to be more aggressive in performing audits and food safety inspections on site, especially after an outbreak has been traced back to either a region or a specific farm in Mexico, just as they do with domestic producers in the United States.
So I think those would be the two areas where we would see the most opportunity.
Appreciate the testimony. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
John Mannion
Gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Lichty, I'm going to focus my questions towards you and I certainly want to look at Canada's dairy tariff-rate quota problem, not just as a farm income issue but also as a manufacturing and jobs issue. And I know that you made reference to this in your opening statement and your answers to my colleague, the Congressman from Wisconsin here. So in upstate New York, we are the number one producer of yogurt and cottage cheese.
We have major dairy organizations, Hood and Byrne, Cayuga Milk, but also Chobani. They've built major yogurt manufacturing facilities because in upstate New York, we have the milk supply, we have the workforce, and we have the promise of market access under USMCA. So if Canada did fully honor its yogurt TRQ commitments, what would that mean for manufacturing jobs and the investment decisions companies are making right now in places like upstate New York?
Michael Lichte
Thank you for the question, Congressman. As you're probably aware, the US dairy industry has invested billions of dollars in the most recent years in manufacturing to process milk from dairy farms into high-quality products including the yogurt, cottage cheese, and the like that you referenced. If we're able to fulfill the quota rates that have been given as a part of the agreement, that's more demand. With more demand, it creates more opportunity to fill capacity, not just to support the jobs in those facilities, but it also provides more milk that farmers can sell to those facilities, especially the ones that you referenced in the state of New York.
John Mannion
And the undercutting of these quotas, you had mentioned in a previous response stiffer penalties. What would those stiffer penalties look like and would it require updates in USMCA?
Michael Lichte
I think in terms of the penalties, we're just looking for the fuller use of the volumes that were granted as a part of the agreement and from our standpoint, just finding mechanisms to be able to get that fuller use of those volumes.
Speaker 60
Got it. Thank you.
I appreciate that. Um, so from what you've seen, are manufacturers having to hold back because of, uh, you know, these quotas not being met?
Michael Lichte
I would say that's unmet demand that we from the United States aren't able to meet. Um, we are able to go find other markets when necessary, but again, from the proximity of the market, it just makes logistical sense for us to be able to work with trading partners that are in Canada that are desiring US dairy products.
John Mannion
Thank you for that. I appreciate that, and we've heard from this administration that they may consider a bilateral approach to the USMCA review. Mexico is obviously a critical dairy export market, but addressing Canada's dairy TRQ issues is also essential if we're serious about growing the dairy manufacturing industry and jobs like you had said. So if we secure a strong agreement with Mexico but leave Canada's dairy TRQ problems unresolved, what impact would that have on our goal of increasing dairy manufacturing and the jobs that come with it in places like upstate New York?
Michael Lichte
If you look at the combination of Mexico and Canada, they are two of the most important and impactful trading partners that we have from a United States dairy perspective. Yes, we would love to continue to maintain but strengthen the relationship we have with Mexico, yet if we leave the challenges unresolved with Canada, that's just unmet demand and lost opportunity for US dairy farmers and US employees of dairy manufacturing.
Mary Miller
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. And Mrs. Baier, I'm sure you know that Illinois leads the country in soybean production. In 2025, Illinois harvested more than 633 million bushels of soybeans, which is more than what some countries produce. In my district alone, there are over 3 million acres of farmland dedicated to soy production. I know how important the USMCA is to soy exports, with Canada and Mexico buying roughly $4 billion in US soy products, which is why I'm very grateful to President Trump's leadership in getting that historic trade deal finalized in his first term.
Mrs. Baier, you mentioned in your written testimony that freight rail is key to the success of the USMCA, specifically as it relates to moving our agricultural products into Canada and Mexico. Can you expand on that and talk about how improved rail, trucking, and port networks can better facilitate agricultural trade across our hemisphere?
Jamie Beyer
Yes, thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Our transportation system is really our advantage when it comes to moving grain. And in addition to soybean, you're a big corn state too, and, um, there's nowhere to hide with the USMCA, you know, covering both crops. And so it's vitally important that we keep these systems strong and moving, and we always say that's how we move the pile. We got to move the pile.
Um, how can we improve rail, trucking, and port networks?
Speaker 62
So something that we've discussed a little today is to reduce the amount of reinspections happening at the Mexican border. That just adds cost and delay, in our opinion.
Okay, thank you, and I yield back.
Jamie Beyer
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Figures, for five minutes.
Shomari Figures
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of the witnesses.
Let my seat up here. Thank you to all of the witnesses for your time and being here today and your presence here today. Look, I represent the state of Alabama, the second congressional district of Alabama, which is in the southernmost half of the state. And so we have a lot of farmers there. And for the farmers and workers and families I represent in Alabama, trade policy is not an abstract political issue.
It directly affects, like in many of your communities, what producers earn for their crops, their livestock, what businesses can invest in, and what families pay at the grocery store. As a member of both the Ag Committee as well as Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I see how trade relationships affect Alabama's agricultural and manufacturing sectors, including our auto industry supply chains and the jobs that depend on moving goods across North America. USMCA has delivered benefits for Alabama. Those benefits, but those benefits depend on something every farmer and business owner values, and that is certainty. Producers need stable markets, employers need a reliable workforce, family need affordable, families need affordable food.
And yet many are facing uncertainty from trade disputes and tariff threats to H-2A labor challenges and concerns about the spread of New World screwworm that we've discussed here today at length. Today's discussion is about more than just trade volumes and economic statistics. It is about whether we are creating a stable environment that allows American agriculture, manufacturing, and rural communities to plan, invest, and compete with confidence and certainty. Over the last year alone, producers have faced volatile markets, rising input costs, labor shortages, animal disease threats, trade uncertainty, and severe weather. Farmers make business decisions months and sometimes years in advance.
Yet many feel that they are operating in an environment where the rules keep changing and keep changing on short notice. And so, Ms. Speyer, my first question is to you, as I look over my, my pitcher's head here, John Manyon. The, your testimony highlights that USMCA works because it provides certainty, clear rules, and long-term confidence for both buyers and sellers. Unfortunately, many of our soybean producers do not see that same certainty in other export markets. When foreign buyers shift their purchases to competitors and invest in new supply chains, those decisions can become permanent.
From the perspective of Alabama soybean farmers, how concerned should we be that market share lost during periods of trade uncertainty may never come back, and what policies are needed to restore confidence in the US as a reliable long-term trading partner?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think, you know, following the, the China trade war, we have definitely seen investments being made in our, in other parts of the world with our competitors and their ability to deliver beans to ports. I think the strength of the US soy economy, though, comes in part to renewable fuels. And we haven't talked too much about that today, too, but with both Canada and Mexico participating in those sorts of activities, there's opportunity there. There's certainly opportunity that we're securing domestically to promote those, those industries.
And having access to crush facilities and fuel refineries and those sorts of things are, are really important for local markets also.
Shomari Figures
Understood. The, do you know right off, and this is not meant to put you on the spot, but if you don't, we'll take a response on the record, but how much was lost in the soybean industry with the tariff war with China when exports dried up?
Speaker 67
Okay. But is it, is it fair to assume, though, that we're talking billions of dollars? Is that a fair assumption?
Shomari Figures
Yeah. Yeah. I, I agree. It's a big number. And unfortunately, I think the billions would not be in the low billions when we get that number.
And I look forward to getting that data point. The point I'm trying to make is that the tariffs, I don't care who you voted for for president. I don't care who you voted for for Congress. I don't care if you identify as a lifelong Democrat or a lifelong Republican.
Does not matter to me. Nobody signed up for what we went through with the tariffs and I know our agriculture committee did not sign up for that either. It was not good for Alabama, it was not good for District 2, it was not good for America, it was certainly not good for the agricultural industry which provides so much to this nation. So much to this nation, yet they had to take it on the chin to the tune of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars. It was not right.
Not right. And something that we collectively as members of Congress who sit here on this committee and across Congress and say that we support farmers, we need to stand up and address the harm that was done regardless of political party and we need to be serious about putting forth a package that provides some relief, at least some of the relief to American agriculture industry. That is something that I would hope that we can have all of you guys's support on and certainly something that I am going to continue to work towards and obviously making sure that the market share, especially in like the soybean markets and peanut markets, cotton markets and and other crop markets, that we think through this through a lens of how do we get that market share back from investments that other trading partners have now made across the world. Thank you and I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Glenn Thompson
I thank the gentleman, gentleman yields back. I do want to just correct the the record on the New World screwworm. It's not here because of USDA budget cuts. USDA and APHIS have broad authority under the Animal Health Protection Act to use appropriated dollars, contingency funding and emergency resources to respond to animal health threats and USDA has used that authority at scale for the past 18 months. For the New World screwworm alone through this authority, APHIS has received roughly 1.3 billion dollars in emergency funding and has already obligated more than 1 billion to mount one of the largest animal health responses in in history.
And so and Farm Bill 1.0 actually invested almost 2 billion dollars over 10 years. So Congress is doing its job of providing the needed, vitally needed resources. I'm going to, I don't think Mr. Harris, I'm going to recognize Mr. Messmer for five minutes. I think Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris, you need additional time or are you ready? I'm ready.
If you are. Okay, well looking over my list here, well I'm still going to recognize Mr. Messmer for five minutes.
Kristin Sawin
Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you witnesses for being here today. Since 2001, specialty crops imported from Mexico have grown by more than 550%. With most of Indiana's 8,000 melon and pumpkin acres farmed in my district, my growers are sensitive to price distortion from imported goods. Unfortunately, Mexico's harvest window overlaps or even precedes Indiana's. As a result, Hoosier producers are forced to compete with Mexican goods sold at prices that American farmers cannot reach under existing labor laws and input cost.
Mr. Puglia, sorry if I butchered that, given your experience advocating for fresh produce growers, how important would you say that the USMCA protect American markets from being saturated with cheap foreign specialty crops, especially during peak domestic harvest?
Dave Puglia
Thank you Congressman, you were close, it's Puglia, like lasagna, right, the G is, we'll make everybody Italians before we're done here. Very important, but as I I may have said earlier to Congressman Scott in our back and forth, I have the burden of representing 300 different crops that fall within the specialty crop category.
Much of what we have to address is very situational, crop by crop. Some crops have advantages in the marketplace where other crops would have a disadvantage. There are seasonal considerations, etc., etc. To your point, though, I think it's very important to recognize that USMCA provides a level of enforced certainty in our trade relationships in our markets, with the proviso that for any of those 300-plus different specialty crop interests, there's there are opportunities to use Section 301 or countervailing duty and anti-dumping cases to address specific alleged harms. Case in point is the tomato suspension agreement I mentioned earlier, which dates back to the 1990s.
US found that Mexico had been, was illegally dumping tomatoes into the US market, but the by agreement of the industry suspended the the the penalties under the the finding. That suspension agreement was terminated by the administration last year, resulting in a 17% tariff on Mexican tomatoes. And so I think that fact-finding, quasi-judicial process is it's a little painful, but it does yield results that are specific to the circumstance of the crop among those 300, the regions that are affected differently. I am very, very aware, spent a lot of time talking to to my counterpart who heads the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Mike Joyner. His members are facing a different situation than mine across many of our shared commodities.
And so I think that that's why it's really important that we that we focus on those tools that are available to industry to be able to to go to USTR, go to Department of Commerce, go to the International Trade Commission and prove a case. It's not easy to do, but it can be done.
Kristin Sawin
Yeah, I think the broccoli growers in my district have felt those same challenges from Mexican product as well. So appreciate that. Indiana also has a vibrant hardwood industry. In fact, the Hoosier State ranks first in the nation in hardwood veneer manufacturing and second in production of wood cabinets and countertops. In 2024, Canada alone represented nearly half the demand for Hoosier-produced wood veneer.
In that same year, Canada and Mexico accounted for a quarter of Indiana lumber exports. Clearly, the USMCA must be preserved. But Ms. Sawin, in your testimony, you described a different issue that is undermining US hardwoods. Against the backdrop of increasing mill closures, how serious is the threat of tariff-free Russian plywood to the American hardwood industry?
Thank you for the question, Congressman. Honestly, it is substantial. Russia exports logs to China, where they're peeled into veneers and shipped to Vietnam. They're then formed into plywood, which enters the US market effectively tariff-free, despite a 50% tariff on direct Russian plywood imports. In 2024, nearly $360 million in birch plywood entered from Vietnam and Indonesia, despite neither country having native birch trees.
Vietnamese plywood imports surged 52% in that single year. The Department of Commerce did make an affirmative circumvention determination in July of 2023, but enforcement has proven really difficult to sustain and imports have surged again. It is a significant factor for the hardwoods industry and for hardwoods growers, and we hope that Commerce continues to focus on its on implementing its its export controls.
Speaker 69
Thank you. I agree with those efforts and protecting those this vulnerable industry is a priority of mine. So thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 70
Thank you, gentleman. Gentleman's time has expired. Now recognize Mr. Davis from North Carolina for five minutes.
Donald Davis
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, to the ranking member and to each witness who's here today. Have the honor of representing Eastern North Carolina, where agriculture is the backbone of our economy. Would like to direct my first question to Mr. Harrington. In Eastern North Carolina, our farmers tell me that it's been hard not knowing what the rules will be from one season to the next. A farmer financing equipment, land, and input is making multiple-year bets.
If this joint review ends in anything short of a clean, long-term renewal, such as non-binding bilateral side deals, what does that do to the ability of farmers and agribusinesses to plan, borrow, and invest?
Neil Harrington
Thank you so much for the question, Congressman. You're really speaking to I think one of the one of the the critical themes we're focused on today, which is certainty. Your farmers, your growers in Eastern North Carolina need that certainty. This is a certainty that that USMCA certainly has supplied and and the the certainty that 30 years of duty-free trade in North America has supplied. They've been able to rely on that, they've been able to invest in that, and they've been able to produce goods at a very competitive scale and cost for consumers nationwide.
So that is absolutely and we we want to see unequivocally 16 more years of of USMCA renewed so that exactly your constituents, your your agriculture and food producers in Eastern North Carolina can ensure that they have that certainty to be able to continue to invest.
Donald Davis
And thank you, Mr. Schomp. North Carolina is the second largest hog-producing state in the country, and a huge share of those hogs are raised in and around my district. Mexico is the number one market for US pork, over 2.9 billion this past year. Walk me through, if you would, what happens to hog producers and processing jobs in a state like mine if USMCA lapses or Mexico retaliates? How quickly would competitors like the EU, which already has agreements with Mexico and Canada, backfill our share?
Michael Schump
Yeah, thank you for that question. It it would have a devastating impact. So as you said, Mexico is our top market for pork exports, and that's not just those high-value muscle cuts that we send, but it's the variety meat products. And given how China has been acting over the last several years as well, they're not the good-faith trading partner that Mexico is often. And so that is a key market for a lot of those products that don't have strong consumer demand here, but they find strong consumer demand and prices in Mexico.
That then returns revenue back to hog farmers and to the entire pork industry. And so that's why maintaining it is critical. To your point, if we don't, the EU and other countries that have agreements with Mexico will take our market share that we have earned, that our farmers and ranchers have earned over decades.
Donald Davis
Mr. Puglia, produce grown in Mexico continues to impact US fruit and vegetable growers because of a cost to of production gap. Our farmers cannot close, our growers meet some of the strictest food safety, labor, and environmental standards in the world. Food safety should be a paramount consideration with our trading partners. In this review, how do we ensure imported produce is held to the same food safety and inspection standards American growers must meet so the playing field isn't tilted against the people that's just trying to do it right?
Dave Puglia
Thank you, Congressman, appreciate that question. The FDA has increased its oversight and regulation of the fresh produce industry domestically. They have not had the same level of increased activity with respect to foreign producers. We have examples of foreign producers of a fresh produce commodity where an outbreak was traced back and to be candid, very little was done to restrict ongoing operations from that producer and continue to ship product into the United States. Similar producer, same product in the United States, outbreak traced back and they've gone through enormous FDA oversight, auditing, testing, change practices, in this specific case I'm thinking of loss of market that has been permanent.
When we have a foodborne illness outbreak in the produce industry, for example, well, I'm not going to name a commodity, but for any of our crops, that tanks consumer demand for a period of time no matter where it came from and no matter who produced it. And so an American grower of any fresh produce product is going to suffer economically when a bad actor on either side of the border fails to perform to the food safety standards that we expect in the United States. So we would hope that the administration and Congress would put a thumb on this issue in renewal of the USMCA to require Mexico to perform to a higher level with US FDA's oversight, including in-field inspections in Mexico.
Thank you, I yield back.
Speaker 74
Gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Harris for five minutes.
Speaker 72
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you on the panel for being here today and for your perseverance as there's a lot of committee meetings going on and I know there's been a whole lot of ins and outs. I had the privilege of reading your testimonies coming into this today and since the USMCA took effect in 2020, it has helped provide stability and predictability for the America's hardworking farmers and ranchers. And while this agreement's been a significant benefit to US agriculture, we all know that there's still opportunities to strengthen it and ensure American producers continue to realize the full benefits. So Mr. Shump, I did notice in your testimony you mentioned that the USMCA preserves preferential access to the Canadian and Mexican markets for US meat, poultry, and livestock products. And I want to kind of build on that point for a moment, considering in my home state of North Carolina, it's one of the largest turkey producing states in the country.
One concern that I hear from industry leaders is regarding market access for the US turkey exports to Canada. Many turkey producers across the country are eager to see additional export opportunities to the Canadian market. So as the USMCA review process moves forward, what are some specific changes you believe could be made to better support the American turkey producers and expand export opportunities to Canada?
Michael Schump
I appreciate that question. So our focus has been on the broader meat industry and so we have not called for major changes to the agreement because we view USMCA as it is with its strong SPS and technical barriers to trade provisions and the duty-free trade for most of our meat and livestock products as key to preserving. So the only additional change we are calling for on the meat industry side is to really see Canada and Mexico allow trade in products that bear common meat names like salami, bologna, prosciutto, etc., so that the EU and other countries do not take our market share for that. So we're not calling for much broader changes beyond the current existing agreement.
Speaker 72
Well, in your expertise, how would greater access to the Canadian market benefit the US turkey producers and bring certainty to their operations?
Michael Schump
We view Canada and Mexico as, again, our most reliable trading partners and that trade does provide certainty.
So any additional certainty that could be provided to these producers and additional elements that would provide more fair and balanced trade would be something that we would expect to see then additional market share, them be able to take additional market share if that's given to them in the agreement.
Speaker 72
Okay. And while we're here, Mr. Schump, I'll just stay here for a moment. The US cattle herd is also at its lowest level in decades and consumers are seeing the impact through higher beef prices at the grocery stores. As ranchers work to rebuild their herd, they continue to face significant new challenges including the drought and the emergence of the New World screwworm. At the same time, other segments of the beef supply chain are facing economic pressures and consumers continue to grapple with the high prices while demand for beef continues to increase.
How can we leverage the USMCA to address concerns about affordability for consumers while also supporting the efforts to rebuild the domestic cattle herd?
Michael Schump
That's an excellent question. So first and foremost, we need to preserve USMCA because if we were to walk away from it, that would certainly have impacts on prices. You know, the duty-free, zero-tariff trade allows this integrated market to flourish and products move across the market multiple times. That helps to reduce cost for businesses and ultimately to consumers. And so we would support maintaining that access for everyone on the meat and poultry side as well as on the livestock side.
Speaker 72
Great. Thank you. In the one minute I have left, Ms. Beyer, China recently committed to purchasing $17 billion in US soybeans annually through 2028, I believe. And as you noted in your testimony, it remains the largest export market for US soybeans. However, Chinese purchases of US soybeans have declined in recent years as China's turned to competitors such as Brazil.
In contrast, how does the certainty and stability provided by long-term agreements like the USMCA influence your year-to-year planting and business decisions?
Jamie Beyer
Thank you for the question, Congressman. We certainly appreciate the attention to the China trade deals and monitoring as those loads head their way for delivery. I think, you know, one of the disappointments for US farmers is that that hasn't grown as much as we would have liked. And so in contrast, we find that USMCA with our partners in Canada and Mexico, we've been able to grow exports to them. And so it ends up being a positive relationship for us.
Jonathan Jackson
Gentleman yields back. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, for five minutes.
Thank you very much, Chairman Thompson, and I'd like to give a very special thank you to all the participants today in our program. I feel the same pain that you do regarding what's going on in Washington. Let me just share this with you. There are times and there are moments in the life of a nation when the debate before us appears to be about economics, but I would say what's missing so far in this discussion is really it's about the character of the nation. This is one of those moments.
When we speak about agriculture and the future of the United States, Mexico, Canada agreements, we're not merely discussing trade flows, commodity prices, or export statistics. We're discussing whether America intends to keep faith with the people that feed her. We're discussing whether a farmer's labor will be honored or sacrificed to political theater. We're discussing whether economic policy will be guided by wisdom or impulse. For generations, American farmers have done what America has always asked them to do.
They planted in uncertainty, they borrowed against hope, they endured droughts, floods, and market swings. They all understand.
And through it all, they fed not only America but they could feed much of the world. Yet in recent years, many farmers have discovered that the greatest threat to their livelihood is not nature, it's in Washington, particularly the reckless use of abuse of tariffs. Now let us tell the truth, tariffs are sometimes necessary tools. Every nation has a right to protect legitimate strategies and our interest. But when tariffs become political weapons used indiscriminately, they cease being economic policy and become economic vandalism.
Because vandalism is the destruction of value that someone else worked hard to create. Economic American soybean farmers spent decades building relationships with international customers. Those relationships were not created by politicians in Washington DC. They were created by the farmers, they were created by the grain elevators. They were created by exporters and families who understood that trust is earned over years and time.
Then suddenly markets were disrupted, retaliatory tariffs followed, customers looked elsewhere, competitors in South America stepped forward and the farmers paid the bill. Not the politician, the farmer. The same story unfolded for the corn producers. Corn is woven into the fabric of rural America. It feeds livestock, it supports ethanol production, it drives local economies across Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota and beyond.
When trade uncertainty enters the marketplace, corn prices weaken, investment slows, and rural communities absorb the shock. A tariff announced in Washington becomes a lost opportunity in Decatur, Illinois, a political press conference becomes a delayed equipment purchase in Bloomington, Illinois, a trade war becomes a family struggling to keep a multi-generational farm alive. This is the human cost of economic carelessness. And let us be very clear, this is not conservatism. This conservatism is supposed to value stability.
This is the most unstable market I think I've seen in my lifetime. Conservatism is supposed to value markets. That's not what we're seeing today. Mr. Chairman, conservatism is supposed to value predictability and stewardship. There's no relief for the farmers in sight.
What we have witnessed too often is not stewardship, it is disruption masquerading, masquerading as strategy. It is uncertainty masquerading as strength. It is economic vandalism carried out in the name of patriotism. Mr. Chairman, I would say the farmer deserves better, the nation deserves better, which brings us to the USMCA. The future of the USMCA should not be retreat, it must be renewal.
The United States, Canada, Mexico together form the most productive agricultural region on earth. Our farmers succeed not because they are isolated, but because they are connected. Connected to market, connected to transportation networks, connected to customers, connected to one another. The answer is not to weaken the United States MCA, the answer is to strengthen it. We should modernize agricultural trade rules, we should expand market access, we should reduce unnecessary barriers, we should protect our farmers' interest, and we should improve transportation infrastructure at ports, rail hubs, border crossings.
We should invest in agriculture technology, climate resilience, precision farming and rural broadband. And perhaps most importantly, we should provide certainty. Because capital flees uncertainty, investment fears uncertainty, and farmers cannot plan their future around political improvisation. America's farmer among the most productive people on earth, their sess success should not depend upon guessing what policy may emerge from Washington tomorrow. The purpose of government is not to create chaos.
I yield back.
Glenn Thompson
Gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Gray, for five minutes.
Adam Gray
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Craig. Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today for this important conversation. The other day I had the opportunity to visit with the Secretary of Agriculture. And I asked her to imagine a fictitious alternate universe where she was given the task of harming California agriculture. I said, what would we imagine we could do?
We talked through, well, maybe we could disrupt the labor market. Perhaps we could have chaotic tariffs that we announce one day and retract the next and announce again. Perhaps we could increase fuel costs and input costs. Her and I at the end of that conversation respectfully agreed to disagree, I guess, on what those things might be. But of course, many of those things are things California farmers are facing today.
And you know, the United States is the world's largest agricultural exporter. California's a big part of that. I represent California's Central Valley, one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, and certainly in the country. You know, we have fresh produce, tree nuts, dairy products, wine. And these markets for these products not only support local jobs, but they support the entire community.
The USMCA agreement has tangibly strengthened trade and relationships with Mexico by nearly 11 billion, Canadian exports nearly 8 billion in 2024. A recent Purdue study found that tariff reductions under the USMCA alone save American families an average of 700 dollars a year. So it seems rather obvious, certainly sitting in my district, that preserving a strong comprehensive trilateral agreement with two of our most important trading partners is certainly critical. But I'm going to now propose a question to Mr. Puglia of a different alternate universe where we decide to help California agriculture. And specifically specialty crops, which I've heard some discussion of today.
And I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what could we imagine to be the most helpful policies to the specialty crop industry considering many of these other challenges faced this past year, and even beyond tariff measures, if I just open the floor to what are the things we could do to really strengthen and support our specialty crop industry.
Dave Puglia
Thank you, Congressman Gray, appreciate the question. And now you've done it. You've gone beyond USMCA. What else could we do? Well, this committee has had some focus on our ag labor situation.
Chairman Thompson has been diligently focused on that. If there's one thing beyond this issue, our trade relationships, that could greatly benefit Western producers in the specialty crop industry, California specifically, given our very, very high labor costs, it would be to address our chronic shortage of affordable and legal labor. We are a very labor-intensive industry, as you know. Anywhere from 40 to as high as 50 percent, depending on the crop and the location, is the cost of labor as a total cost of production. So I would say that that would be our Holy Grail.
But having said that, there are elements of USMCA, as I've stated previously, that can be addressed that would help somewhat level the playing field. We do have a chronic imbalance in cost structure between Mexico and US producers. That probably isn't going to change, but it doesn't have to be as dramatic as it is. And so we've suggested, particularly around labor enforcement, that Mexico be held to greater account to live up to its commitments in the USMCA so that we have a more balanced labor situation in terms of cost of production between the two countries.
Adam Gray
Appreciate that answer and certainly appreciate both the chairman and the ranking member's efforts to support specialty crops, support California, and appreciate the leadership of Western Growers, and it's very nice to see you.
Glenn Thompson
Gentleman yields back. Before I proceed to closing comments, I just will say this today would be a great opportunity to help not just specialty crops, but all the commodities represented here and all the commodities in the country by signing on as an original co-sponsor to the Securing Agricultural Workforce Act. This is a piece of legislation that's been built with obviously with the task force that this committee formed last Congress. And I would just, if you want to know what to do to help specialty crops and everyone else, signing on as an original co-sponsor today, I would say would be the most immediate step to take. With that, before we adjourn today, I want to invite the ranking member to share any closing comments that she might have.
Shontel Brown
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. So today we've heard from the chairman, Republicans, Democrats, and every one of our witnesses on the value of USMCA for opening up markets for US producers. And unbelievably, this has happened at the exact same time that the president went on TV and said that he may not renew it. You cannot make this stuff up. American businesses cannot thrive in a vacuum, whether you're a farmer growing crops or a trucker hauling livestock across a border for processing, stable friendships with our neighbors and stable markets are good business.
Chaos, tariffs, and war, and tweets, not so much. The Trump administration has a choice, and as of about 40 minutes ago, according to Reuters, it's threatening not to renew the USMCA. Now, this administration could use USMCA as an opportunity to help level the playing field for American farmers and lower food costs for American consumers, or they can further undermine relations with our closest and largest trade partners. And I'm disappointed but not surprised to see the direction that this administration is leaning. I know which outcome working people, farmers, and families that I've spoken to would prefer.
I'm unclear if those priorities resonate with the administration. Will we prioritize lowering costs or continue the chaotic midnight diplomacy of a president who upends markets every time he tweets? I just want to say thank you to our witnesses who came here today ready to talk about the importance of a stable market and strong trade relations. We sincerely appreciate your time and your testimony.
Glenn Thompson
Well, I thank the gentlelady for closing comments. I want to thank the panel and our staff on both sides of the aisle that work so hard to make these hearings happen. The USMCA has been highly effective at expanding regional trade, pushing commerce, obviously ag and beyond, near two trillion dollars annually and making Mexico and Canada the United States' top trading partners with significant gains in agriculture. USMCA has really served as a model trade agreement that will benefit from refinement, including improvements with enforcement. The House Agriculture Committee will be at the table to assure that the voices of our agriculture commodities are heard, building on the 18 trade agreements successfully achieved by the present administration in the past 18 months.
This, coupled with the Ag Committee's leadership in legislating with the Farm Bill, where we doubled the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, among others, is good news for our farmers and our ranchers and for consumers at the end of the day. The US agriculture trade deficit is projected to narrow to 29 billion dollars for fiscal year 2026. Now, that's still too high, but it's a significant recovery from the record-setting 43.7 billion dollar deficit. And this represents a 42 percent reduction in the trade gap, supported largely by renewed international trade agreements. You know, an informed refinement and reauthorization of USMCA is absolutely critical.
I believe and I know that this gap will continue to close to where we once again, this country will have a, with agriculture, a trade surplus as we accomplish this. And so, once again, thank you to our panel today for bringing your knowledge, your wisdom, your insight, and your representation of all the hardworking families that you represent. Under the rules of the committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a member. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.