Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3433. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. President, before I make remarks on this amendment, I express my gratitude to my colleagues from New Mexico, to…
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3433.
I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, before I make remarks on this amendment, I express my gratitude to my colleagues from New Mexico, to Senator Reed, who is the ranking member, and to Senator Collins, the chair of the appropriate Appropriations subcommittee, for working so closely with me and my colleagues in regard to rail service, the Southwest Chief, from Chicago to Los Angeles, which transports people through Kansas and through Colorado and through New Mexico. We have had a bipartisan effort from the Senators of those three States to make certain that service continues into the future. I am very grateful for their support.
I ask my colleagues, the other Senators, to support the Moran-Udall amendment.
Amendment No. 3433
Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to force the USDA to continue honoring its existing agreement between grain handling facilities and official inspection services.
Following the passage of legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act, the Department of Agriculture amended its regulations and changed the treatment of grain facilities using inspection services located outside their defined, designated geographic areas.
The USDA's decision to alter the way it had been doing business has disrupted existing agreements and longstanding working relationships between grain handlers and grain inspectors. Also, the change has decreased the efficiency of inspections and reduced grain elevator operators' flexibility to coordinate with inspection services.
This amendment would not allow the USDA to revoke any additional agreements that are currently in place. To be clear, these grain elevators are still using USDA-sanctioned, official inspection agencies. The inspection agencies in question have agreed to perform inspections outside of the designated geographic areas.
The question we will soon be voting on is whether USDA ought to honor those exceptions already made to grain facilities and their inspectors. This is a commonsense amendment to make certain USDA does so--honors its commitments--and that grain facilities are afforded the best possible service from the Department of Agriculture.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I want to speak this evening for a few moments about trade and tariffs. They certainly have been in the news for a long time. They are in the news today. I want to highlight the importance of trade and exports to Kansas, my constituents, and express my concerns about tariffs and an escalating trade war.
A global trade war will raise the price of goods for American consumers; result in retaliation against farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers who depend upon exports; and weaken our ability to work with our allies to challenge China's unfair trade practices.
Kansans are already feeling the effects of tariffs. Approximately $361 million worth of Kansas exports are being targeted by the emerging trade war, including soybeans and sorghum exports to China, aerospace exports to Canada, and beef and corn exports to Mexico. Moving forward with another $200 billion to $500 billion in tariffs against China or new section 232 tariffs on automobiles for supposed national security concerns will only increase the negative impact upon my folks at home.
With 95 percent of consumers living outside our country's border, the ability for Kansas farmers and rancher to earn a living is directly tied to our ability to sell food, fuel, and fiber. The food, fuel, and fiber we grow in Kansas must be exported to people around the world.
Since March, uncertainty in trade has contributed to the price of soybeans falling by $2 a bushel. A $2 drop in soybean prices equates to Kansas farmers and grain handlers losing out about $378 million of possible revenue solely on soybeans--one crop.
The significant harm the trade war is causing to farmers and ranchers is no doubt the reason the administration is proposing $12 billion in disaster relief for agriculture. Unfortunately, it is only a short-term fix to a long-term problem and will not make up for the lost markets for farmers.
China and Mexico, two of our largest markets in Kansas for agriculture producers--Mexico is No. 1, and China is No. 2--have already started to increase purchases of ag commodities from Brazil and Argentina instead of from U.S. producers, including those in Kansas. I am concerned that once we lose those markets, it will take years, if ever, for us to regain those markets.
This hit could not come at a worse time for ag producers. Farm revenue has already fallen by over 50 percent since 2013. Low commodity prices have pushed many producers to limits of financial viability.
I wrote an op-ed this spring arguing that Kansas farmers and ranchers can't afford a trade war. With fall harvest around the corner, many farmers will be faced with the reality of selling grain at or below the cost of production just to be able to pay off this year's operating loans.
The impact of the downturn in the ag economy cannot be solely quantified on a balance sheet. I am concerned that reduced economic opportunity in agriculture will result in fewer young people returning to rural America. One of my goals is to see that the sons and daughters of farmers and ranchers in Kansas have the opportunity to continue another generation of agriculture production in our State. When they cannot reach a price that is profitable, when they cannot obtain a price that is profitable, the likelihood of those young men and women remaining or returning to Kansas farms and ranches disappears because when agricultural struggles, so do our rural communities.
As the average age of a farmer nears 60 years old, it is critical that our policies increase the likelihood that a
young person is able to return to take over the family farm or ranch. I fear the trade war and tariffs will unfortunately have the opposite effect. Fewer markets to sell meat and grain will make it more difficult for the next generation to earn a living in rural America.
If farmers in Kansas are not producing a crop and selling it, then it means their communities also suffer. The ability to keep a grocery store in town or a grain elevator or a hardware store is diminished when farm income is as it is today.
It is not just an agricultural issue. In fact, Kansas manufacturers are also dealing with the negative impact of recently imposed tariffs.
Users of steel and aluminum are frequent in Kansas. Ours is an automobile and aviation manufacturing State, and they are facing increased costs of materials, regardless of whether they utilize domestic or imported steel and aluminum.
Chanute Manufacturing in Chanute, KS, is an example of the steel and aluminum tariffs harming a small company and its workers. The company, which employs about 130 Kansans, is a domestic manufacturer of steel- based components for the power generation market. Due to tariffs, Chanute's cost for raw materials has increased by about 8 percent.
However, when the same powerplant equipment is manufactured overseas, it can be imported here tariff-free. The actual unintended consequence of the steel tariff has been to incentivize foreign manufacturing of power equipment currently made in my home State.
Chanute Manufacturing has also missed opportunities to compete on projects in other countries due to the tariffs. Last year, the company built and shipped equipment they manufactured in Kansas to Morocco. However, when a duplicate project came available in Morocco again this year, Chanute wasn't even considered because the steel tariffs have raised their production costs, making them less competitive than cheaper foreign manufacturers.
China is important. The President is right to try to change the behavior of China. Tariffs are not the only tool to make certain that other countries follow international trade rules and treat American exporters and workers fairly.
I support efforts to hold China accountable for unfair trade practices and the theft of trade secrets and intellectual property rights from American companies. I applauded the United States for filing a challenge to China's domestic agricultural support levels at the World Trade Organization. When China unfairly subsidizes its producers or limits market access to U.S. wheat, corn, and rice, the United States is right to contest them and to contest them strongly and firmly. While I remain unconvinced that tariffs are the best tool to change China's behavior, it does not mean we should not pursue strong enforcement of global trade rules.
I am also concerned that picking a fight on trade with the rest of the world reduces our ability to win the fight with China, the country that is most deserving of strong trade actions by the United States. By attempting to take the whole world on at once, the United States risks spreading our resources thin and reducing our focus on changing China's practices.
The United States is not the only country with complaints about China's trade practices. Yet, instead of working with our allies to influence China and change their behavior, we have forced confrontations with other countries that ought to be by our side in dealing with China.
I believe that by strengthening our trade and economic relations with our allies, the United States will be better able to continue directing sound trade policies on the global stage. This includes successfully concluding a NAFTA renegotiation with Canada and Mexico and reengaging in the Trans-Pacific Partnership--TPP--negotiations or pursuing bilateral agreements with countries in the TPP, such as Japan.
This week, in fact tomorrow, Ambassador Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, will be testifying before the Appropriations subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. That subcommittee oversees the funding for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The hearing will be an opportunity for the subcommittee members to hear firsthand from Ambassador Lighthizer on USTR's trade efforts and to express concerns about the impact the tariffs have had and will continue to have on our constituents. I hope to learn more about the USTR strategy and the end goal in threatening more tariffs, progress to conclusion of NAFTA negotiations, and efforts to fill the President's call for a new bilateral trade agreement.
Again, recently imposed tariffs are having immediate impacts upon farmers and ranchers and manufacturers, but the long-term implications of disrupting supply chains and losing market share that took decades to build up is perhaps even more concerning. It is time to inject more certainty into our trade policies. We ought to start by reaching an agreement on a modernized NAFTA and ending the threat of an escalating trade war.
I look forward to conversations with Ambassador Lighthizer this week and making certain that the administration understands the importance of getting trade policy right for Kansas and for America.