U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–964 PDF 2015

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE TO U.S. 

AGRICULTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 18, 2015 

Serial No. 114–5 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SCOTT C. GRAVES, Staff Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from New Mexico, submitted comment on behalf of David Sanchez, Vice President, Northern New Mexico Stockmen’s Association ............................................................ 49 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES

Stallman, Bob, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hill, D.V.M., Ph.D., Howard T., President, National Pork Producers Council, 

Cambridge, IA ...................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Kappelman, Peter J., Chairman, International Trade Committee, National 

Milk Producers Federation, Two Rivers, WI ...................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Guenther, Robert L., Senior Vice President for Public Policy, United Fresh 

Produce Association, Washington, D.C. ............................................................. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Supplementary material .................................................................................. 49 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Ellis, Philip, President, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, submitted letter .......................................................................................................................... 51 

(1) 

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE TO U.S. 

AGRICULTURE 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:57 a.m., in Room 1300 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael Conaway 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Lucas, Thompson, 

Crawford, DesJarlais, Benishek, Denham, LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, 

Rouzer, Abraham, Newhouse, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, 

Costa, Walz, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, 

Nolan, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett, Adams, Graham, and 

Ashford. 

Staff present: Scott C. Graves, Jackie Barber, Bart Fischer, Matt 

Schertz, Mollie Wilkin, Caleb Crosswhite, Jessica Carter, Haley 

Graves, Ted Monoson, John Konya, Andy Baker, Liz Friedlander, 

and Nicole Scott. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We are going to call this hearing 

of the Committee on Agriculture to order, regarding the importance 

of trade to U.S. agriculture. Please come to order. I have asked 

David Scott if he would open us with a prayer. David? 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I want to first of all thank you. 

Thank you for the many blessings that you bestow upon us. Blessings, somehow, someway, dear God, that oftentimes we did not 

know how or where or what to ask for, but we thank you for your 

Holy Spirit that intercedes on our behalf with words that are often 

unheard. Dear God, as we, as your public servant, go forth in our 

duty to represent the people of our great nation, we simply ask you 

to bestow in our hearts, for us to do the things the right way with 

the right things, those things that your angels desire to look into. 

These and other blessings, we ask in your son, Christ Jesus’, name. 

Amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Amen. Thank you, David. 

I want to start by welcoming our witnesses and thanking them 

for taking time out of their schedules to come share their thoughts 

with us today. 

As those of us in the room are aware, America’s farmers and 

ranchers are the most productive in the world. They have continuously proven their ability to meet rapidly-growing and ever-changVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
2 

ing demands here at home, but their reach stretches well beyond 

the U.S. border. In fact, exports now account for almost 1⁄3 of total 

U.S. farm income. In the case of commodities like cotton, tree nuts, 

rice, and wheat, over 1⁄2 of total production is exported. 

Beyond the obvious benefits to producers, trade also helps support almost one million American jobs in production agriculture, 

and in related sectors like food processing and transportation. As 

a result, it is crucial, not only for American agriculture, but to the 

American economy as a whole to maintain and increase access to 

the world’s consumers, 95 percent of whom live outside our borders. 

To obtain that access, it is imperative that we work to reduce 

and eliminate international barriers to trade, so that our farmers 

and ranchers can compete globally on a level playing field. On that 

front, the U.S. is currently engaged in negotiations for the TransPacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership. These agreements present opportunities for market 

access throughout Europe and Asia, and the Asia-Pacific region. 

TPP, for example, would connect 12 nations that account for nearly 

40 percent of global GDP. But as history has shown, in one form 

or another, Trade Promotion Authority has played a critical role in 

completing and implementing past agreements. In fact, Congress 

has granted TPA to every President since 1974, and the 114th Congress should be no exception. TPA will provide our negotiators with 

the credibility necessary to conclude the most effective trade agreement possible, by making it clear to the rest of the world that Congress and the Administration are serious about this endeavor. 

That being said, the details of these agreements are of utmost 

importance. This Committee will do its part to ensure they are favorable to U.S. agriculture. At the end of the day, even with TPA 

in place, it is Congress who decides if trade agreements will be 

ratified, but passing TPA is an essential part of getting to that 

point. So, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 

the role that both trade and TPA play in maintaining a strong and 

vibrant rural economy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

I want to start by welcoming all of our witnesses and thanking them for taking 

time out of their busy schedules to come share their thoughts with us today. 

As those of us in this room are aware, America’s farmers and ranchers are the 

most productive in the world. They have continuously proven their ability to meet 

rapidly-growing and ever-changing demands here at home. But their reach stretches 

well beyond the U.S. border. In fact, exports now account for almost a 1⁄3 of total 

U.S. farm income. In the case of commodities like cotton, tree nuts, rice, and wheat, 

over 1⁄2 of total production is exported. 

Beyond the obvious benefits to producers, trade also helps support almost one million American jobs in production agriculture and in related sectors like food processing and transportation. As a result, it is crucial—not only to American agriculture, but to the U.S. economy as a whole—to maintain and increase access to the 

world’s consumers, 95 percent of whom live outside of our borders. 

To obtain that access, it is imperative that we work to reduce and eliminate international barriers to trade, so that our farmers and ranchers can compete globally 

on a level playing field. On that front, the U.S. is currently engaged in negotiations 

for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. These agreements present opportunities for market access throughout Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. TPP, for example, would connect 12 nations that 

account for nearly 40% of global GDP. 

3 

But as history has shown, in one form or another, Trade Promotion Authority has 

played a critical role in completing and implementing past agreements. In fact, Congress has granted TPA to every President since 1974, and the 114th Congress 

should be no exception. TPA will provide our negotiators with the credibility necessary to conclude the most effective trade agreements possible, by making it clear 

to the rest of the world that Congress and the Administration are serious about this 

endeavor. 

That being said, the details of these agreements are of utmost importance. This 

Committee will do its part to ensure they are favorable to U.S. agriculture. At the 

end of the day, even with TPA in place, it is Congress who decides if trade agreements will be ratified. But, passing TPA is an essential part of getting to that point. 

So, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the role that both 

trade and TPA play in maintaining a strong and vibrant rural economy. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, I recognize the Ranking Member 

for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

calling the hearing. And thanks to today’s witnesses. 

And we all understand how important trade is to agriculture, 

and that most of the people that eat in the world live outside the 

United States, although a lot of them don’t have a whole lot of 

money to buy anything, so we understand that it is important. 

But with regard to the Trade Promotion Authority, the TPP, I 

have been visiting with Ambassador Froman a considerable 

amount of time over some issues, and I am not totally to the point 

where I have gotten all the answers that I need. I am kind of waiting to see where I am going to end up on that, but what I am concerned about is that we don’t cause problems in this agreement, 

like we did with NAFTA. Some of them, like the sugar thing, we 

knew was coming, but what a lot of people aren’t focused on is 

what we did with poultry, eggs and milk in Canada. We basically 

let them keep their system up there. It is very profitable. There are 

some in the United States that would like to see that kind of a system in the U.S., but it is not going to happen. The system up there 

that limits the amount that they can produce, and their producers 

make a lot of money. You have to have quota in order to do it. It 

costs a fair amount to buy the quota, but what people haven’t focused on is that when we started NAFTA, the Canadian ownership 

of our processing was not even on the radar screen. Now, the Canadian co-ops in Quebec; Agropur and Saputo, are the number one 

and number three owners of processing of dairy in the United 

States. And the reason for that is because they are making all this 

money, and they can’t invest it in their own industry, and so they 

are investing it in the U.S. I am not sure that is what we intended 

or I am not sure that is a good thing. We need to get that straightened out in this deal. The Canadians are going to be in this deal. 

We need to get that straightened out. There are other issues in 

Japan and Mexico as well. 

Ambassador Froman assures me that they are going to get started on doing this. We will see. And we appreciate the people being 

here today to give us their point of view of how they think things 

are progressing with this agreement, and I look forward to their 

testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. 

4 

I would like now to welcome our witnesses to the table. Mr. Bob 

Stallman. Bob, how are you doing? He is the President of the 

American Farm Bureau Federation here in Washington, D.C.; Dr. 

Howard Hill, National Pork Producers Council, Cambridge, Iowa; 

Mr. Pete Kappelman, National Milk Producers Federation, Two 

Rivers, Wisconsin; and Mr. Bob Guenther, Senior Vice President 

for Public Policy, United Fresh Produce Association, Washington, 

D.C. Gentlemen, thank you for being here this morning. 

And with that, Mr. Stallman, the microphone is yours. 

STATEMENT OF BOB STALLMAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the Committee, for holding today’s hearing and for allowing the Farm Bureau to come present our views 

on the importance of trade to U.S. agriculture. The Farm Bureau 

strongly supports efforts to increase agricultural trade through 

comprehensive new trade agreements. America’s farmers and ranchers exported more than $152 billion 

worth of farm goods last year; a testament to their own hard work 

and productivity, as well as the positive impacts of opening new 

markets around the globe. 

Agricultural exports have grown about 40 percent over the past 

5 years thanks to global economic growth, and a parade of agreements that have lowered tariffs and expanded tariff rate quotas. 

However, the United States has not concluded a new trade agreement since 2011. A major reason for this slowdown is that Trade 

Promotion Authority expired in 2007. TPA allows U.S. trade negotiators to present our best deal to trade partners, and receive our 

trade partners’ best offers, all the while reserving Congress’ right 

to a yea or nay vote on the final deal. 

New trade agreements cannot come soon enough. U.S. agricul- tural exports are projected to decline by as much as $9 billion this 

year. Some of that decrease is due to lower commodity prices, but 

it is also due to non-science-based restrictions on one product or 

another, and high tariffs around the world. 

For America’s farmers and ranchers to see continued export 

growth, we must pen deals that knock down those trade barriers, 

and giving the Administration Trade Promotion Authority is necessary to reach those market opening agreements. The U.S. should 

be planting seeds today for future growth in agriculture trade, and 

there are seeds that are ready to be planted. U.S. negotiators are 

working to conclude major regional trade talks with 11 other countries, including Japan, under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Japan 

is already a significant market for U.S. agriculture. It promises to 

be an even more important market if we can remove the barriers 

and high tariffs on a number of agricultural products as they try 

to protect their agricultural production. 

The Farm Bureau supports efforts to achieve a meaningful outcome from the TPP talks, meaning that all commodities are on the 

negotiating table, and the talks must not set up new barriers to 

U.S. exports. We also support efforts to increase agricultural trade 

with the countries of the European Union. The Transatlantic Trade 

Investment Partnership, or TTIP, gives us the opportunity to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
5 

move longstanding barriers to conventionally raised beef, remove 

restrictions against U.S. poultry and pork, and remove non-sciencebased actions that limit U.S. goods produced through biotechnology. 

The EU is the world’s largest import market for food and agriculture commodities, and was once the top destination for U.S. agricultural exports. Today, it has fallen to number five on the list. 

If U.S. farmers and ranchers were able to compete on a fair and 

scientific basis, the EU once again could be a major growth market 

for us. The opportunities to resolve longstanding trade issues 

through TTIP is exciting for those who, like me, and I am sure 

many of you, have been frustrated for far too long by the EU’s use 

of the precautionary principle, geographic indications, and other restrictions to limit access to its markets. We don’t know if these negotiations will succeed. There are tough issues, and again, longstanding issues that must be dealt with. There must be positive 

outcomes for all sides, but we need to plant these seeds of future 

trade, and Trade Promotion Authority is the soil that allows new 

trade agreements to grow. 

When Congress extends TPA to the Administration, it also stipulates that U.S. trade negotiators must consult with Congressional 

committees. The Farm Bureau firmly believes this is vital to ensuring that Congress provides oversight on the conduct and outcomes 

of trade negotiations. This oversight role is bolstered by the ability 

of Congress to establish negotiating objectives for the Administration. 

I will close by reiterating that passage of TPA is critical to 

achieving our trade goals. The certainty of having TPA in place ensures that U.S. negotiators have the leverage to obtain the best 

agreement possible. Agricultural exports have a real impact on real 

farmers and ranchers. They create demand for our crops, meat, and 

other products, and they help sustain millions of American jobs. 

The Farm Bureau urges Congress to approve Trade Promotion Authority as a critical component for a successful trade policy agenda. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to highlight the 

benefits of trade to America’s farmers and ranchers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB STALLMAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Good morning. I am Bob Stallman, a beef and rice producer from Columbus, 

Texas, and President of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Farm Bureau is the 

nation’s largest general farm organization, representing farmers and ranchers of all 

farm sizes, producing every commodity, using a large variety of production methods, 

in every state. 

Farm Bureau strongly supports efforts to increase agricultural trade through com- prehensive trade agreements. The $152.5 billion of U.S. agricultural exports in 2014 

demonstrates the strength of U.S. agricultural productivity, the important contribution of trade to the economic well-being of farmers and ranchers, and the ability of 

the United States to provide competitive food and farm products to markets worldwide. 

Trade Promotion Authority 

Farm Bureau has long supported Congress extending Trade Promotion Authority 

(TPA) to the President to provide U.S. trade negotiators the leverage they need to 

complete negotiations and set the stage to put into effect international trade agreements. Currently, TPA is important to ongoing work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). For these 

6 

negotiations to move forward while maintaining the focus on improving and expanding trade between our negotiating partners, we need to have TPA in place. 

TPA authorizes the President to negotiate and sets the stage for Congress to consider, without amendment, the trade agreements that the Administration reached 

with foreign trading partners. Typically, when Congress extends this authority, it 

also stipulates that U.S. trade negotiators must participate in consultations with interested Congressional committees and Members in an ongoing process as to how 

the negotiations are progressing. We firmly believe this is vital to ensuring that 

Congress has its hand in providing oversight on the conduct and outcomes of trade 

negotiations. This oversight role is bolstered by the ability of Congress to establish 

negotiating objectives for the Administration. 

For farmers and ranchers, this hearing is a clear example of how this Committee 

and your leadership enhances agriculture’s participation by providing an opportunity for farm and commodity organizations and our respective members to work 

with you and our individual representatives to help them understand the necessity 

of expanding agricultural trade opportunities. The negotiating objectives of improved market access to foreign markets by tariff reduction and removal, along with 

the necessity of science-based standards for international agricultural and food 

trade, are critical to successful trade negotiation outcomes for agriculture. 

TPA establishes the support for and understanding of trade goals necessary for 

Congress and the Administration to achieve ambitious international trade agreements that work to the benefit of many sectors of the U.S. economy. For agriculture 

in particular, experience suggests that market access measures are usually finalized 

toward the end of negotiations. The certainty of having TPA in place ensures our 

negotiators have the leverage to obtain the best agreement possible because those 

on the other side of the table know it will not be amended by Congress—and just 

as important, it helps our side make the point that if Congress deems the agreement insufficient, it will not be ratified. 

We urge the House to promptly consider and approve Trade Promotion Authority 

as a necessary and critical component for a successful trade policy agenda. 

Trans-Pacific Partnership 

A major regional trade effort for the United States is the TPP negotiations between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, 

Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States. 

The addition of Japan to full participation in the TPP talks enhances the significance of the negotiations and makes the agreement much more encompassing of 

U.S. agricultures’ goals for agricultural trade. Japan’s inclusion has also fueled interest among other Asia-Pacific nations for similar opportunities to improve trade 

relations with the U.S. and other participating countries. 

Japan is the fourth-largest agricultural export destination for the U.S. with more 

than $13.4 billion in sales in 2014. Despite the significance of this market, barriers 

exist that prohibit sales from reaching their full potential. Japan maintains several 

restrictive policies that inhibit U.S. exports, such as high tariffs on dairy, horticulture, rice and other products, along with various Sanitary and Phytosanitary barriers. By joining the TPP negotiations under the same conditions as other participants, Japan is negotiating to resolve long-standing trade barriers for all agricultural products. 

Indications are that there will be a reduction in Japan’s beef tariffs, reform of 

their gateway price system for pork, additional TRQ for rice and reduction in tariffs 

on dairy products. 

A recent USDA study indicates that 70 percent of agricultural export gains by the 

U.S. would be through increased sales to Japan. These increases depend upon Japan 

reforming its tariffs on agricultural imports. 

Discussions with Canada over import restrictions on dairy, poultry and eggs from 

the U.S. also must yield new access for U.S. farmers and ranchers into this market. 

The TPP will only fulfill its promise of improved and increased trade in the Pacific 

region by achieving commercially meaningful market access for agricultural products. 

We are looking for a substantive outcome for American agriculture from these 

talks. This can only be achieved by removing tariffs and other trade barriers that 

intentionally reduce U.S. agricultural opportunities to compete in export markets. 

We also believe that trade negotiations must not include new barriers to the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets. Singling out a specific 

commodity for unique treatment will lead to a growth in trade barriers for other 

agricultural exports, something we have had to remind our own Administration of 

as these negotiations have progressed. 

7 

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 

Farm Bureau supports efforts to increase agricultural trade flows and remove 

trade barriers that currently exist between the United States and the European 

Union. 

The TTIP negotiations between the U.S. and the EU must deal with the many 

substantive issues that impede U.S.-EU agricultural trade, such as long-standing 

barriers against conventionally raised U.S. beef, ongoing restrictions against U.S. 

poultry and pork, and actions that limit U.S. exports of goods produced using biotechnology. 

The U.S. and the EU are major international trading partners in agriculture. U.S. 

farmers and ranchers exported more than $12.6 billion worth of agricultural and 

food products to the EU in 2014, while the EU exported more than $20 billion worth 

of agricultural products to the U.S. last year. 

The EU was the once the largest destination for U.S. agricultural exports. Today, 

it has fallen to our fifth-largest export market. The U.S. is losing market share in 

the world’s largest import market for agricultural commodities and food. While EU 

agricultural imports have grown, according to USDA, U.S. market share has steadily declined to just seven percent—1⁄2 of the level achieved in 2000. 

Over the last decade, growth of U.S. agricultural exports to the EU has been the 

slowest among our top ten export destinations. If U.S. farmers and ranchers were 

provided an opportunity to compete, the EU market could be a growth market for 

them. However, regulatory barriers have become a significant impediment to that 

growth. 

Unless these trade barriers are properly addressed within the Transatlantic Trade 

and Investment Partnership or TTIP negotiations, they will continue to limit the potential for agricultural trade. It is imperative that TTIP be a high-standard trade 

agreement that covers all significant barriers in a single, comprehensive agreement. 

Scientific standards are the only basis for resolving these issues. 

Continuing barriers to the export of U.S. beef, pork and poultry, along with the 

slow approval process for biotech products, are major areas of interest to the U.S. 

in the TTIP negotiations. Both the U.S. and the EU adhere to the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which states that 

measures taken to protect human, animal or plant health should be science-based 

and applied only to the extent necessary to protect life or health. 

The U.S. follows a risk-assessment approach for food safety. The EU is additionally guided by the ‘‘precautionary principle,’’ which holds that where the possibility 

of a harmful effect has not been disproven, non-scientific risk management strategies may be adopted. 

The use of the ‘‘precautionary principle’’ is inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreement and is used as a basis for scientifically unjustified barriers to trade. The TTIP 

negotiations must result in a modern, science- and risk-based approach, based on 

international standards that can truly resolve SPS disputes. SPS issues must be directly addressed as a part of the negotiations, and these provisions must be enforceable. 

The EU approach for approving products of biotechnology combines a lengthy approval process with the ability of EU member states to ban approvals. The result 

is restrictive import policies and substantial reductions in U.S. exports of corn and 

soybeans to the EU. 

The EU system of geographic indications for foods and beverages designates products from specific regions as legally protected for original producers. The U.S. has 

opposed recognizing geographical names for foods when it would inhibit the marketability or competitiveness of U.S. products. The TTIP must not become an avenue 

to erect a new barrier to U.S. agricultural exports through the use of geographic 

indications. 

Negotiations on bilateral concerns move in both directions. There must be positive 

outcomes for all sides. The European Union has concerns about U.S. rules on EU 

beef and dairy products. An emphasis on finding trade-opening solutions to sanitary 

barriers will assist in resolving our many trade issues. 

The TTIP negotiation proposal calls for working toward the elimination of tariffs. 

The average U.S. tariff on imported agricultural products is five percent, with 75 

percent of our tariff lines at between zero and five percent. For the EU, the average 

tariff is 14 percent, with 42 percent of tariff of lines at zero to five percent. In order 

to expand market opportunities for U.S. agricultural products in the EU, tariff reductions will be necessary. 

We call for an ambitious agreement that addresses the real barriers to the growth 

of agricultural trade between the United States and the EU. 

8 

Biotech 

American Farm Bureau Federation remains dedicated to resolving issues related 

to the approval of biotechnology products. Today we face a myriad of challenges, 

some old, others a bit more new. 

In the European Union implementation of the regulatory procedure for approving 

the import of new biotechnology products has been slow and suffered from political 

interference, which has led to large disruptions in the transatlantic trade in raw 

materials used by EU food and feed producers and increased costs for producers, 

the agricultural supply chains and EU consumers. European Commission President 

Juncker initiated a 6 month review of the EU’s biotech import approval procedure 

which should be concluded by April 30, 2015. The review has introduced an additional level of uncertainty and risk to trade in crops imported by EU traders. Currently, thirteen new biotech products are pending final import approval in the EU. 

Farm Bureau is working through the U.S. Biotech Crops Alliance for EU regulations 

that are consistent with the EU’s obligations under the WTO SPS agreement. 

In China, the timeline for biotech product approval for use as food, feed or processing has grown less certain and extended in duration since 2012. The divergences 

in U.S. and Chinese approvals have and will continue to put billions of dollars of 

U.S. exports at risk. While we welcomed the news that China approved three biotechnology products in December 2014, significant concerns remain with the approval of several events remains in question. At the December 2014 Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) meeting the U.S. and China agreed to form 

the JCCT Strategic Ag Innovation Dialogue (SAID). Through this new dialogue between our two nations we hope that the important role that biotechnology plays in 

achieving food security, including timely approval of new products, will be a primary 

focus. 

USDA Export Promotion: Farm Bureau strongly supports the work of the USDAfunded export councils that assist agricultural commodity and product sales. The 

Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development program are funded 

at $200 million annually for MAP and $34.5 million annually for FMD. 

West Coast Ports: Work has resumed as the two sides settled on a new contract, 

which has yet to be finally ratified. It is estimated that the situation in the West 

Coast ports cost agricultural shippers of containerized products over $1.7 billion per 

month and disrupted agricultural exports across the country. 

While not directly related to the West Coast port issue, it does serve to remind 

us all of the importance of a strong, robust commitment to upgrading and maintaining our nation’s transportation infrastructure. As one of our specialty crops farmers 

shared with our Trade Advisory Committee not too long ago, sometimes our biggest 

obstacle to taking advantage of trade opportunities is getting our commodities and 

products to U.S. ports for shipment. 

World Trade Organization 

As agricultural exporters, U.S. agriculture must continue to seek a commercially 

meaningful outcome through expanded market access from WTO negotiations. We 

must remain committed to advancing the goal of trade liberalization and increased 

opportunities for real trade growth. 

Farm Bureau wants an outcome to trade negotiations in the WTO that will open 

new markets around the world, produce new trade flows and grow the global economy. We can achieve this outcome by negotiating on the basis of a new agenda, not 

by reliving the failures of the past. 

For the ‘‘post-Bali work plan’’ the U.S. is pushing for a new agenda while developing countries are in favor of keeping the existing Doha Development Agenda and 

working from the 2008 agriculture draft. Farm Bureau supports a fresh approach, 

with updated information and having market access as the most important part of 

any future agricultural discussions. Starting again with the previous failed agenda 

that focused on domestic support reductions that are not balanced by increased market access, especially to developing countries, will not achieve a positive market 

opening result for U.S. agriculture. 

Conclusion 

Farm Bureau members all across our nation know that expanding opportunities 

for agricultural trade is necessary to their continued success. We appreciate your 

leadership in holding this hearing and look forward to working with the Committee 

on advancing the progress of agricultural trade. 

And in that regard, as we have done in the past when negotiations on a particular 

trade agreement are concluded, we will conduct our own economic analysis of trade 

agreements and how they impact, positively or negatively, farmers and ranchers in 

9 

a given state or region. I offer to all of you that when we have an agreement to 

analyze, we would love the opportunity to share the results of our analysis with you. 

Thank you Chairman Conaway, Mr. Peterson and Members of the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stallman. 

Dr. Hill? 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD T. HILL, D.V.M., PH.D., PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, CAMBRIDGE, IA 

Dr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear here on behalf of NPPC, National Pork Producers Council. 

Since 1989, when the United States began using bilateral and regional trade agreements to open foreign markets, U.S. agriculture 

exports have nearly quadrupled in value, and now stand at a 

record $150+ billion. Exports in 2014 supported more than a million full-time jobs, and more than 1⁄2 of those jobs were created in 

the past 10 years. In 2014, the agricultural trade surplus is estimated to be around $40 billion. Each and every one of the trade 

agreements that made these remarkable achievements possible 

were themselves made possible by the enactment of Trade Promotion Authority bills. This is why NPPC, and virtually every 

other agricultural organization in the United States, are in favor 

of Congress expeditiously moving TPA legislation. 

The key reason TPA is needed is so that the Administration can 

conclude the TPP negotiations. TPP has the potential to be the 

highest standard, most economically significant regional free trade 

agreement ever negotiated, and the United States is largely driving 

the proverbial bus on the trade talks. It is critically important that 

the United States gets TPP correct. 

U.S. trade negotiators will have the final leverage they need to 

close the TPP negotiation when Congress passes TPA. It will allow 

the nations to cut their bottom line negotiating position on TPP. 

But it gets better than that. Other nations already have lined up 

to come into the U.S.-led regional FTA. With the World Trade Organization Doha multilateral trade negotiation on life support, TPP 

clearly has the potential to become the de facto platform for future 

global trade expansion. 

If Congress does not pass TPA, the 11 TPP countries with which 

the United States is negotiating won’t be empowered to get to a 

bottom line position. Instead, it will signal to those TPP partners 

in the Asia-Pacific region—which is the fastest growing economic 

area in the world—and to the rest of the world that the United 

States is turning its back on the Asia-Pacific region, and that it is 

willing to allow other nations to write the rules of trade. 

There are a number of other FTAs under negotiation in the AsiaPacific region that, if implemented, would undermine U.S. competitiveness in the region. 

Let me specifically talk about pork. The U.S. pork industry has 

benefited tremendously from trade agreements and expanded 

trade. As a result of trade agreements, exports have increased 

1,550 percent in value, and 1,268 percent in volume since 1989, the 

year the U.S. implemented the free trade agreement with Canada, 

and started opening international markets for value-added agricultural products. The United States’ pork industry, the number one 

10 

pork exporter in the world, now exports more pork to the 18 FTA 

partners than to the rest of the world. According to a study conducted at Iowa State University, U.S. pork exports support more 

than 147,000 U.S. jobs. 

The benefits from TPA are expected to exceed the benefits delivered in past trade deals, representing, in the words of ISU, or Iowa 

State University, economist, Dr. Dermot Hayes, ‘‘the most important commercial opportunity ever for the U.S. pork industry.’’ 

My friends in the beef and poultry sector also have benefited significantly from free trade agreements. The United States exports 

almost as much beef, pork, and poultry to the 18 nations in which 

we have FTAs as it does to the 148 nations in which we do not 

have FTAs. Additionally, the rate of trade growth is much faster 

to FTA nations than to non-FTA nations. Since 2000, pork, beef, 

and poultry meat exports to the 18 FTA countries increased by 273 

percent, while exports to the 148 non-FTA countries increased by 

just 126 percent. 

In summary, the U.S. pork industry, U.S. agriculture, indeed, the 

entire U.S. economy, needs TPA and we need it soon. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hill follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD T. HILL, D.V.M., PH.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, CAMBRIDGE, IA 

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) hereby submits the attached written testimony to the U.S. House Agriculture Committee for its March 18, 2015, 

hearing on ‘‘The Importance of Trade to U.S. Agriculture.’’ This submission, submitted March 16, 2015, is for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in 

the printed record of the hearing. 

Introduction 

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is an association of 43 state pork 

producer organizations that serves as the voice in Washington, D.C., for the nation’s 

pork producers. The U.S. pork industry represents a significant value-added activity 

in the agriculture economy and the overall U.S. economy. Nationwide, more than 

68,000 pork producers marketed more than 111 million hogs in 2013, and those animals provided total gross receipts of over $20 billion. Overall, an estimated $21.8 

billion of personal income and $35 billion of gross national product are supported 

by the U.S. hog industry. Economists Daniel Otto, Lee Schulz and Mark Imerman 

at Iowa State University estimate that the U.S. pork industry is directly responsible 

for the creation of nearly 35,000 full-time equivalent pork producing jobs and generates about 128,000 jobs in the rest of agriculture. It is responsible for approximately 111,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, mostly in the packing industry, 

and 65,000 jobs in professional services such as veterinarians, real estate agents 

and bankers. All told, the U.S. pork industry is responsible for more than 550,000 

mostly rural jobs in the United States. 

U.S. Agriculture Benefits from Trade 

The economic well-being of American agriculture depends on maintaining strong 

export markets and creating new market access opportunities. Export markets are 

in large part the result of trade agreements negotiated over the past 2 decades. 

Since 1989, when the United States began using bilateral and regional trade agreements to open foreign markets, U.S. agricultural exports have nearly quadrupled in 

value and are now a record $150.5 billion. During that period, earnings from U.S. 

agricultural exports as a share of cash receipts to farmers have grown from 22 percent to 35 percent. Exports of high-value products such as pork have recently overtaken bulk products and now represent nearly 2⁄3 of the total; 25 years ago it was 

the reverse. 

Farm and food exports have a positive multiplier effect throughout the U.S. economy. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, every $1 in U.S. farm 

11 

1 ERS Agriculture Trade Multipliers were last updated February 26, 2015. 

exports stimulates an additional $1.22 1 in business activity. Off-farm activities and 

services include purchases by farmers of fuel, fertilizer, seed and other inputs and 

post-production processing, packaging, storing, transporting and marketing the 

products shipped overseas. Exports of $150.5 billion in 2014, therefore, generated 

another $184 billion in economic activity in the United States, bringing a total benefit to the economy of $334 billion. This economic activity creates jobs. Every $1 billion of U.S. agricultural exports requires the full-time work of approximately 7,580 

Americans throughout the economy. Exports in 2014, therefore, supported more 

than one million full-time jobs, and more than 1⁄2 of those jobs were created in the 

past 10 years. 

Agricultural exports also help offset part of the U.S. nonagricultural trade deficit. 

Agriculture has been a positive contributor to the nation’s trade balance for more 

than 50 years. In 2014, the agricultural surplus is estimated to be around $40 billion. 

Each and every one of the trade agreements that made these remarkable achievements possible were themselves made possible by the enactment of Trade Promotion 

Authority (TPA) bills. Those bills gave U.S. negotiators the ability to extract the 

best deals possible from other countries. Without it, no country would be willing to 

make the toughest concessions to the United States for fear that Congress could 

subsequently demand more. That is why NPPC and virtually every other agricultural organization in the United States are in favor of Congress expeditiously moving TPA legislation. Attached to this statement is a letter sent by NPPC and 70 

other agricultural organizations in support of TPA. 

The key reason TPA is needed is so the Obama Administration can conclude the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. The TPP has the potential to be the 

highest-standard, most economically significant regional Free Trade Agreement 

(FTA) ever negotiated. And the United States is largely driving the proverbial bus 

on the trade talks. It is critically important that the United States get TPP right. 

While NPPC and most other private groups will make a determination on support 

for TPP once there is a final agreement to review, U.S. trade negotiators will have 

the final push they need to close the negotiations when Congress passes TPA. It will 

allow nations to cut to their bottom line negotiating position in TPP. 

But it gets better. Other nations already are lining up to come into this U.S.-lead 

regional FTA. With the World Trade Organization Doha multilateral trade negotiations on life support, TPP clearly has the potential to become the de facto platform 

for future global trade expansion. 

If Congress does not pass TPA, the 11 TPP countries with which the United 

States is negotiating won’t be empowered to get to their last and best position. Instead, it will signal to those TPP partners, to the Asia-Pacific region—the fastest 

growing economic area in the world—and to all the world that the United States 

is turning its back on the Asia-Pacific region and that it is willing to allow other 

nations to write the rules of trade. There are myriad other FTAs under negotiation 

in the Asia-Pacific region. Some are small bilaterals, while others are large, such 

as the RCEP—Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which involves the 

ten nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Japan, 

South Korea, China, India, Australia and New Zealand—that, if implemented, 

would undermine U.S. competitiveness in the region. 

The U.S. pork industry, U.S. agriculture, indeed the entire U.S. economy needs 

TPA, and they need it soon. 

The U.S. Meat and Poultry Sectors Benefits from Trade 

The United States exports almost as much meat and poultry to the 18 nations 

with which it has FTAs as it does to the 148 nations with which it does not have 

FTAs. Additionally, the rate of trade growth is much faster to FTA nations than to 

non-FTA countries. Since 2000, pork, beef and poultry meat exports to the 18 FTA 

countries increased 273 percent, while exports to the 148 non-FTA countries increased by just 126 percent. (See the chart below.) 

12 

Total U.S. Pork, Beef, Chicken, and Turkey Exports to FTA Countries and 

Non-FTA Countries 

Pork 

The U.S. pork industry has benefited tremendously from trade agreements and 

expanded trade. As a result of trade agreements, exports have increased 1,550 percent in value and 1,268 percent in volume since 1989, the year the United States 

implemented the FTA with Canada and started opening international markets for 

value-added agriculture products. The U.S. pork industry, the number one pork exporter in the world, now exports more pork to the 18 FTA partners than to the rest 

of the world. Anyone who says that trade doesn’t benefit the U.S. pork industry is 

either seriously ill informed—or lying. 

The benefits from TPP are expected to exceed the benefits delivered in past trade 

deals, representing, in the words of Iowa State University economist Dermot Hayes, 

‘‘the most important commercial opportunity ever for U.S. pork producers.’’ 

Pork Exports and Free Trade Agreements 


11406001.eps 11406002.eps
13 

Since 2000, pork exports to all 18 FTA countries increased 642 percent. Pork exports to the 148 non-FTA countries increased by only 245 percent. The accession of 

China and Taiwan to the WTO are included in the graph below, which details the 

tremendous pork export explosion that commenced in 1989, with the U.S.-Canada 

FTA. 

U.S. Pork Exports 

Source: USDA GATS. 

Exports of pork have hit new records for 20 of the past 22 years. In 2014, the 

United States exported more than $6.6 billion of pork to more than 100 nations, 

which added about $62.45 to the price that producers received for each hog marketed. (That amount is significant given that the average price producers received 

for a market hog in 2014 was $162.) According to a study conducted by economists 

Daniel Otto, Lee Schulz and Mark Imerman of Iowa State University, U.S. pork exports support more than 147,000 U.S. jobs. According to economist Dermot Hayes 

of Iowa State, the TPP has the potential to create 10,000 more U.S. jobs through 

increased pork exports. 

Beef 

The U.S. beef industry has gained incredible opportunities from trade agreements. 

Beef exports in 2014 reached a record high even with production being down 5.6 

percent for 2013. Beef exports have been on an upward trajectory for the last 30 

years. In 1984, the United States exported only 330 million pounds of beef (150,000 

metric tons), which represented just 1.4 percent of total U.S. beef production; by 

1988 exports exceeded 1 billion pounds. Less than 10 years later, in 1997, exports 

exceeded 2 billion pounds. (That number would later decline to 460 million pounds 

in 2004 because of the first case of BSE in the United States.) The industry was 

able to recover by 2010 to a record volume exports of nearly 2.8 billion pounds 

(1.267 million metric tons). 

In 2014, beef exports reached $7.13 billion, which accounted for a 16 percent or 

a nearly $1 billion increase from 2013. Export volume was just under 1.2 million 

metric tons, and exports equated to 14 percent of total production and 11 percent 

of muscle cuts. The value per head averaged a record $297.68 last year, up $52.72 

from the previous year. December export value was $340.69 per head, up $61.53 

from a year ago. 

Poultry 

The U.S. poultry industry also has seen tremendous gains from exports. Poultry 

meat and egg exports in 2013 reached a record high of $5.862 billion. Combined U.S. 

chicken and turkey export value climbed to $5.527 billion, egg exports reached a 

new record value of $335.4 million and exports of broiler meat was valued at $4.3 

billion. The top export markets for U.S. broiler meat (including paws) are Mexico, 

China, Russia, Angola and Hong Kong, which combined imported 3.6 million tons 

valued at $4.6 billion in 2013. 


11406003.eps
14 

The industry also supports approximately 300,000 jobs at chicken processing 

plants nationwide and another 60,000 in feed mills, hatcheries, distribution centers, 

corporate headquarters and other locations. 

In recent years, exports of poultry products have increased with the success of 

various trade agreements such as the WTO Uruguay Round, NAFTA and CAFTA 

so that export sales now represent approximately 22% of production. However, successful exports of U.S. poultry can sometimes be frustrated by the sudden imposition of non-tariff barriers, such as those the United States has long faced in South 

Africa, and some that have recently been imposed in historically important markets 

such as China and Russia. 

The U.S. poultry believes that for the industry to be successful in the long term, 

it needs fair and open access to as many markets as possible. TPA will make it possible for the U.S. Government to pursue additional market opportunities in Asia, 

Europe and Canada where there are substantial opportunities for exports of U.S. 

products. 

The U.S. Trade Balance 

Finally, much has been said about the impact of FTAs on the United States balance of trade in goods. As the chart below clearly demonstrates, FTAs do not have 

a negative impact on the overall trade balance of the United States. As noted previously, agriculture has been a positive contributor to the nation’s trade balance for 

more than 50 years. In 2014, the agricultural surplus is estimated to be around $40 

billion. 

U.S. Trade Balances with FTA Countries and the Rest of the World 

ATTACHMENT

February 5, 2015 

Dear Member of Congress, 

The undersigned organizations strongly support the introduction and enactment 

of Trade Promotion Authority legislation as quickly as possible. The people we represent—American farmers, ranchers, food and agriculture companies, retailers and 

their workers—are heavily dependent on trade for their livelihoods. Their ability to 

compete in global markets is tied to the ability of the United States to eliminate 

impediments to international trade. 

As a result of trade agreements implemented since 1989, when the U.S. began 

using bilateral and regional trade agreements to open foreign markets to our goods, 

U.S. agricultural exports have nearly quadrupled in value and now stand at a 

record $152.5 billion (fiscal 2014). During that period, earnings from U.S. agricultural exports as a share of cash receipts to farmers have grown from 22 percent to 

over 35 percent. 

These farm and food exports have a positive multiplier effect throughout the U.S. 

economy. Every $1 in U.S. farm exports is estimated to stimulate an additional 


11406004.eps
15 

$1.27 in business activity. Off-farm activities and services include purchases by 

farmers of fuel, fertilizer, seed and other inputs as well as post-production processing, packaging, storing, transporting and marketing the products we ship overseas. Exports of $152.5 billion in fiscal 2014 therefore generated another $194 billion in economic activity in the U.S., bringing the total benefit to the economy to 

$347 billion. 

This economic activity creates jobs. Every $1 billion of U.S. agricultural exports 

requires the full-time work of approximately 6,600 Americans throughout the economy. Exports in fiscal 2014 therefore supported over one million full-time jobs, and 

more than 1⁄2 of these have been generated in the past 10 years as our exports have 

more than doubled in value. 

Each and every one of the trade agreements that delivered remarkable achievements was made possible by the enactment of Trade Promotion Authority bills. 

Those bills gave U.S. negotiators the ability, with clear direction and backing from 

Congress, to extract the best deals possible from other countries. 

Without TPA, our negotiating partners would be unwilling to make the toughest 

concessions, and why should they if they judge that the U.S. will be forced to backtrack on a ‘‘final’’ deal as a result of Congressional amendments to the implementing 

legislation? In short, trade agreements such as those being negotiated with 11 other 

countries under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and with the European Union 

under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) cannot achieve 

U.S. goals without TPA. 

There are myriad trade deals under negotiation in the Asia-Pacific region, the 

fastest growing economic region in the world. TPP is not the only agreement under 

consideration, but it is the most important. In the TPP, the Administration is working hard to close a comprehensive, high-standard, 21st century deal that will eliminate barriers to our exports and raise standards within the TPP nations. Should 

Congress not pass TPA, it will signal to our TPP partners and to the world that 

we are turning our back on the fastest growing economic region in the world. 

TPP can become the most important regional trade negotiation ever undertaken 

if the result is truly comprehensive. But for TPP to become a reality, Congress 

needs to pass TPA. We urge you to vote for TPA. 

Agribusiness Council of 

Indiana 

American Farm Bureau 

Federation 

American Feed Industry 

Association 

American Peanut Council 

American Peanut Product 

Manufacturers, Inc. 

American Seed Trade 

Association 

American Soybean 

Association 

Animal Health Institute 

Archer Daniels Midland 

Co. 

Biotechnology Industry 

Organization 

Blue Diamond Growers 

Bunge North America 

California Cherry Export 

Association 

California Dried Plum 

Board 

California Farm Bureau 

Federation 

California Fresh Fruit 

Association 

California Pear Growers 

California Walnut 

Commission 

Campbell Soup Company 

Cargill, Incorporated 

Commodity Markets 

Council 

Corn Refiners Association 

CropLife America 

Distilled Spirits Council of 

the U.S., Inc. 

Food Marketing Institute 

Grain and Feed 

Association of Illinois 

Grocery Manufacturers 

Association 

Juice Products Association 

National Association of 

State Departments of 

Agriculture 

National Association of 

Wheat Growers 

National Barley Growers 

Association 

National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association 

National Chicken Council 

National Corn Growers 

Association 

National Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives 

National Fisheries 

Institute 

National Grain and Feed 

Association 

National Oilseed 

Processors Association 

National Pork Producers 

Council 

National Renderers 

Association 

National Sorghum 

Producers 

National Sunflower 

Association 

National Turkey 

Federation 

North American Blueberry 

Council 

North American 

Equipment Dealers 

Association 

North American Meat 

Institute 

Northwest Horticultural 

Council 

Ohio AgriBusiness 

Association 

Oregon Potato 

Commission 

Pet Food Institute 

Produce Marketing 

Association 

Sunmaid Growers of 

California 

Sunsweet Growers Inc. 

Sweetener Users 

Association 

Texas Grain & Feed 

Association 

Tyson Foods, Inc. 

U.S. Apple Association 

U.S. Apple Export Council 

U.S. Canola Association 

U.S. Dry Bean Council 

16 

U.S. Hide, Skin and 

Leather Association 

U.S. Livestock Genetics 

Export, Inc. 

U.S. Wheat Associates 

United Egg Producers 

USA Poultry & Egg 

Export Council 

USA Rice Federation 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

Washington State Potato 

Commission 

Western Growers 

Association 

Wine Institute 

WineAmerica 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hill. 

Mr. Kappelman? 

STATEMENT OF PETER J. KAPPELMAN, CHAIRMAN, 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL MILK 

PRODUCERS FEDERATION, TWO RIVERS, WI 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking 

Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

inviting me today to testify on the vital importance of trade to the 

U.S. dairy industry. I am a fourth generation dairy producer from 

Two Rivers, Wisconsin, and I am Chairman of the National Milk 

Producers Federation International Trade Committee. 

National Milk member cooperatives produce the majority of the 

milk in the United States, making National Milk the voice of more 

than 32,000 dairy farmers from across the country on national 

issues. I would also add that I am a Board Member of the U.S. 

Dairy Export Council. National Milk coordinates closely with the 

Export Council, including its processor members, thereby helping 

the industry to speak with one voice on trade issues. 

In the past 15 years, U.S. dairy exports have grown by 625 per- cent to a record $7.1 billion. The same trend holds true when looking at export volumes as well. Fifteen years ago, we were exporting 

five percent of our milk production, and a portion of that was with 

the assistance of export subsidies or food aid donations. Today, we 

are exporting three times that level with no government support, 

even as overall U.S. milk production has continued to grow. That 

equates to 1 day’s milk production each week that ultimately ends 

up overseas, making exports critical to the health of my farm and 

our industry. 

It is not at all coincidental that the enormous growth over this 

period occurred during a time in which the U.S. was implementing 

a number of new market-opening, free trade agreements, each of 

which were concluded under and ultimately approved through the 

use of Trade Promotion Authority. These agreements removed tariff and often non-tariff barriers. In many cases, they also gave our 

products a preferential advantage over other supplying countries. 

In every case, our dairy exports to FTA partner countries have 

shown substantial and sometimes dramatic increases. 

The fact is that 96 percent of the world’s population lives outside 

of our borders. That population is growing faster than ours, and 

that is where the output of our increasing dairy productivity must 

find a home. This means that for our farmers to continue to grow, 

and for our processing companies to continue to expand, overseas 

markets are critical. 

As a producer myself, I know firsthand what this means to me 

and my bottom line. When our exports increase, I benefit. When, 

for whatever reason, our exports are impeded or we give up market 

share, the effect is ultimately felt by the farmer in the price we receive. But it is not just dairy producers who are impacted. USDA 

17 

estimates that each billion dollars of U.S. dairy exports generates 

20,000 jobs in dairy processing and marketing. Therefore, our $7 

billion of exports last year supported more than 140,000 incremental jobs here in the U.S., and generated nearly $20 billion in 

additional economic activity. 

When it comes to trade, those who stand still fall behind. Our 

competitors are negotiating trade agreements all over the globe. 

Unfair import barriers remain in place, and new ones are erected 

all the time. The TPA legislation introduced last year put a strong 

new priority on tackling non-tariff barriers which have been cropping up more and more lately, whether they take the form of SPS 

barriers or the abusive geographical indications to impede U.S. exports. We hope to see those provisions replicated in this year’s bill. 

The reality is that if we aren’t in the game actively negotiating 

on these issues, we are ceding ground to our competitors and those 

looking to make it tougher for us to do business in their markets. 

A case in point is that TPP negotiations significant access to the 

TPP’s most protected dairy markets, Japan and Canada, is absolutely essential to us, and both of those countries have pointed to 

the importance of having a TPA in place as these TPP talks enter 

their final stage. Our negotiators have moved the ball forward on 

many key issues, but more work still needs to be done. To deliver 

an agreement that delivers net trade benefits for the U.S. dairy industry, we need to have TPA in place to get there. 

The U.S. dairy industry is thinking globally and prepared to do 

what our customers want and need. What we need now is for Congress to move forward with TPA so that the Administration can 

conclude high quality trade agreements that preserve our ability to 

compete and deliver net trade benefits to the U.S. dairy industry. 

I appreciate this opportunity today to provide comments on the 

important issue of trade. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kappelman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER J. KAPPELMAN, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMITTEE, NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, TWO RIVERS, WI 

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify on the importance of trade to the U.S. dairy 

industry. My name is Pete Kappelman. I’m a 4th generation dairyman from Twin 

Rivers, Wisconsin and I’m Chairman of the International Trade Committee of the 

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). 

NMPF develops and carries out policies that advance the well-being of dairy producers and the cooperatives they own. NMPF’s member cooperatives produce the 

majority of the U.S. milk supply, making NMPF the voice of more than 32,000 dairy 

producers on national issues. International trade is one of those issues and in recent 

years it has been one of the most important to our industry. NMPF works closely 

on international trade issues with the U.S. Dairy Export Council whose partnership 

between producers, proprietary companies, trading companies and others interested 

in supporting U.S. dairy exports, has contributed greatly to the success of the industry. 

Introduction 

This industry has come a long way on trade in the past several years. Our nation 

has gone from exporting dairy products valued at less than $1 billion in 2000 to exporting a record $7.1 billion in 2014, an increase of 625 percent. That reflects not 

just a tremendous jump on a value basis but also a dramatic increase in the proportion of U.S. milk production that’s finding a home overseas, as reflected in the chart 

below. 

Fifteen years ago we were exporting roughly 5% of our milk production, now we’re 

at three times that level, even as overall U.S. milk production has continued to 

18 

grow. That means that the equivalent of 1 day’s milk production each week from 

the entire U.S. dairy industry ultimately ends up overseas, making exports integral 

to the health of my farm and our dairy industry at large. 

U.S. Dairy Balance—20 Years 

It is not coincidental that the enormous growth over this period occurred during 

a time in which the U.S. was implementing a number of market-opening free trade 

agreements, each of which were approved through the use of Trade Promotion Authority. These agreements lowered and ultimately removed tariffs and in many 

cases they gave our products a preferential advantage over other supplying countries. They also often helped remove technical and regulatory barriers to our trade. 

In every case, our dairy exports to countries with which we implemented free trade 

agreements have shown substantial, sometimes dramatic, increases (Attachment 1). 

The fact is that 96 percent of the world’s population is overseas. That population 

is growing faster than ours and that is where the output of our increasing dairy 

productivity must find a home. This means that for our farmers to continue to grow 

and processing companies to continue to likewise expand, overseas markets are critical. 


11406005.eps
19 

1http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-trade-multipliers/effects-of-trade-onthe-us-economy.aspx. 

Concentration of World Population 

As a producer myself, I know first-hand what this means to me and my bottom 

line. When our exports increase, I benefit. And when, for whatever reason, our exports are impeded or we give up market shares, the effect is ultimately felt by the 

farmer in the price we receive. 

But it is not just dairy producers who are affected for better or worse when exports rise or fall. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates that each billion dollars of U.S. dairy exports generates 20,093 jobs at the milk production level 

and that $2.76 of economic output are generated for each $1.00 of dairy exports. It 

is remarkable that, while for agriculture as a whole each billion dollars in exports 

generates 5,780 jobs,1 in the dairy sector each billion dollars in exports generates 

over three times as many jobs. Thus, the $7.1 billion that we exported in dairy products in 2014 supported more than 142,000 U.S. jobs at the production level. And 

according to the ERS multipliers, those exports generated nearly $19.6 billion in additional economic activity at that level. 

At the manufacturing level, where the milk is turned into cheese and other processed dairy products, ERS estimates that each billion dollars of exports generates 

3,150 jobs. So, our exports in 2014 supported 22,300 jobs at the manufacturing level. 

This, in turn, generated additional economic activity of nearly $25 billion. 

Exports account for approximately 31.7 billion pounds of U.S. milk, equating to 

the milk from 1.4 million cows. As global demand for dairy continues to rise, U.S. 

dairy exporters are meeting the challenge by making the right products with the 

right packaging and the right specifications for each customer. The U.S. is now the 

world’s leading single-country exporter of skim milk powder, cheese, whey products 

and lactose, thereby benefiting millions of customers in hundreds of countries 

around the world. 

To best understand the level of importance that exports have today for the U.S. 

dairy industry and farmers in particular, a key barometer is the percentage of incremental milk solids going to support U.S. dairy exports. Since 2003, total U.S. milk 

production increased by nearly 35.7 billion lbs. Over that time, 61 percent of the 

increase in U.S. milk solids produced was required to supply U.S. dairy product exports. That means that more than 21.8 billion lbs of the additional milk the U.S. 

has produced since 2003 has been devoted to exports. At the 2014 all-milk price of 

$24.00/cwt, this represents nearly $5.2 billion in additional dairy farm revenue. 


11406006.eps
20 

That amount of milk also represents the amount that more than 4,800 average sized 

(i.e., 204 cows per farm) dairy farms would produce. 

There is no doubt that exports will continue to play an increasingly important role 

within the U.S. dairy industry. Our future is dependent on continued growth in 

dairy exports. 

USDA’s long-term baseline projects U.S. milk production to increase to 230.4 million lbs. by 2019, which represents an increase of 24.354 million lbs. If 57% of new 

milk continues to supply export markets, an additional 13.882 million lbs will be 

used for exports. During that time period, milk production per cow is expected to 

increase to 24,580 pounds per cow. That means that, without growth in dairy exports, 623,676 fewer cows would be required to produce milk in the United States 

and 5,423 fewer average-sized farms would be needed to keep up with the supply 

and demand for U.S. milk. For U.S. milk producers to continue to see robust milk 

production growth, exports must increase in not only absolute terms, but also in relative terms because the rate of domestic consumption growth is insufficient to maintain milk production growth, as projected by USDA. 

When we talk about the importance of agricultural exports, or in my case, dairy 

exports, it is easy to wade too deeply into statistics, and for that I apologize. It is 

important to also stress that the benefits of agricultural exports go not just to the 

farmers in your districts back home. The benefits also go to the people who sell 

farmers fuel, fertilizer, seed and other inputs, and to the people involved in processing, packaging, storing, transporting and marketing the farm products that end 

up moving overseas. And, of course, the multiplier effect goes even farther—to the 

benefit of people in the communities where farmers buy goods and services, from 

school clothes to haircuts. 

I have painted a rosy picture so far of the potential trade offers. But when it 

comes to trade, those who stand still fall behind. Our competitors are negotiating 

trade agreements all over the globe. Unfair import barriers remain in place and new 

ones are erected all the time. These types of challenges are detailed in our 2014 National Trade Estimate comments. They range from unjustifiable health and safety 

measures to certification requirements to the more recent and extremely protectionist efforts by the EU to prevent the use of common cheese names—by misusing 

Geographical Indications to give its producers a lock on international markets. If we 

aren’t in the game actively negotiating on these issues, we’re ceding ground to our 

competitors and those looking to make it tougher for us to do businesses in their 

markets. 

That’s why we need to continue to be able to use trade agreements to keep expanding export opportunities. Not one of the free trade agreements that have been 

so beneficial to us in the past has been implemented without some form of trade 

negotiating authority from Congress (TPA). Knowing that a trade agreement will be 

considered by Congress under such a process is what allows our negotiating partners to make their best offers on issues and products of greatest sensitivity. Inevitably, dairy and many other agricultural products fall into that category. 

A case in point is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. Access to the 

TPP’s most protected dairy markets—Japan and Canada—is essential to us and 

both countries have pointed to the importance of having TPA in place as TPP talks 

enter their final stages on agricultural negotiations. Our negotiators have moved the 

ball forward on many key issues but in order to ensure that we conclude a highstandard, balanced agreement that delivers net trade benefits for the U.S. dairy industry, we need to have TPA in place. 

We also see tremendous value in TPA’s ability to not only spur our trading partners to make hard decisions in the final hours of trade negotiations, but also in its 

ability to highlight issues that Congress deems to be of critical importance in order 

to direct the Administration to focus on addressing those topics. The TPA legislation 

introduced last year included strong new provisions instructing U.S. negotiators to 

tackle sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures in a heightened manner and address the abuse of geographical indications to impede U.S. exports. Both of these 

types of non-tariff barriers have posed sizable challenges to U.S. exports in fastgrowing markets and we very much look forward to seeing TPA legislation introduced that retains a focus on addressing these critical issues. 

In addition, TPA has given U.S. negotiators the direction to prioritize products 

that are subject to significantly higher tariffs in major producing countries. This 

prioritization is extremely important for our industry since dairy tariffs, particularly 

into large and developed dairy markets, are often extremely high. A case in point 

is Canada where dairy tariffs typically range from 200%—300%. We want to ensure 

that our negotiators devote particular priority to the highest tariffs confronting U.S. 

agricultural exports and see TPA as a vital tool in ensuring that that appropriate 

focus is not lost. 

21 

All of this is why TPA is so important in order to allow us to deal with these 

tough issues effectively via well-negotiated trade agreements. TPA is a clear directive to the Administration about what types of agreements will be acceptable to 

Congress and a reassurance to our trading partners that if they make tough calls 

to address those problems the U.S. has identified, they can take confidence in seeing 

the agreement get a fair hearing by Congress. That is why we sent the attached 

letter (Attachment 2) to Congress earlier this month to urge swift action on TPA. 

In Conclusion 

The attached table, which I mentioned earlier, reflecting our dairy trade balance 

with all U.S. FTA partners in the past 2 decades, is strong evidence of the progress 

that can be made with TPA in place. We can be competitive & increase sales in markets as diverse as Latin America, the Middle East and Asia—what we need are 

well-negotiated agreements and the necessary avenue to achieve and implement 

them. TPA is that avenue. Without TPA, though, we run the risk of instead losing 

market share as our trading partners forge ahead with their own agreements that 

address their tariff and non-tariff concerns while at the same time putting us at a 

disadvantage. 

The U.S. dairy industry is thinking globally and it is prepared to do what our customers want and need. Our industry recognizes the market opportunities that exist 

overseas. We are prepared to capitalize on the good name that the U.S. has established as a reliable supplier of safe and nutritious products. Moreover, many 

throughout the U.S. dairy industry are undertaking significant long-term investment commitments in order to meet foreign demand. 

What we need now is for Congress to move forward with TPA so that the 

Administration can conclude high-quality trade agreements that preserve 

our ability to compete and deliver net trade benefits to the U.S. dairy industry. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this important issue to this 

Committee. Thank you. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

U.S. Dairy Exports to Free Trade Agreement Partners 

FTA 

Date 

Entered into 

Force 

U.S. Dairy Exports 

Growth Year Before 

Agreement 2014 

Million Dollars Percent 

Mexico—NAFTA 1/1/94 252 1,586 +529 

Canada—NAFTA 1/1/94 65 343 +428 

Jordan FTA 12/17/01 2 7 +250 

Singapore FTA 1/1/04 8 98 +197 

Chile FTA 1/1/04 3 59 +1,867 

Australia FTA 1/1/05 6 171 +2,750 

El Salvador (CAFTA) 3/1/06 5 14 +180 

Honduras (CAFTA) 4/1/06 8 23 +188 

Nicaragua (CAFTA) 4/1/06 4 19 +375 

Guatemala (CAFTA) 7/1/06 30 36 +20 

Morocco FTA 1/1/06 0 .1 97 +96,900 

Bahrain FTA 8/1/06 0 .6 27 +44,000 

Dominican Republic 3/1/07 17 75 +341 

Costa Rica (CAFTA) 1/1/09 3 16 +433 

Oman 1/1/09 0 .6 1 +67 

Peru 2/1/09 20 63 +215 

South Korea 3/15/12 220 410 +86 

Colombia 5/12/12 8 55 +588 

Panama 10/31/12 32 45 +41 

Source: USDA GATS. 

ATTACHMENT 2 

March 2, 2015 

Dear Member of Congress: 

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export 

Council (USDEC) support the introduction and enactment of Trade Promotion Authority legislation as quickly as possible. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is a critVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
22 

ical piece in the effort to secure and pass balanced, well-negotiated trade agreements. 

TPA legislation would be a vital step forward in strengthening Congress’s role in 

trade negotiations. By having a clear framework through TPA for participating actively in the negotiating process, Congress increases its ability to influence the 

agreements as they are being written and to help craft a deal that will be beneficial 

for the United States. In this way, TPA plays a key part in supporting a strong 

trade policy agenda. That type of active trade policy agenda is particularly important to our industry in light of the fact that we are now exporting the equivalent 

of 1 day out of every week’s milk production. Last year the U.S. dairy industry exported over $7 billion last year, making trade vital to our industry’s future. 

At this stage of TPP, we have significant concerns regarding how critical elements 

of the TPP talks—particularly those related to dairy market access and the use of 

common food names—will ultimately be resolved in ongoing negotiations. Given the 

strong dairy export potential TPP could offer, it would do our companies and farmers a disservice to accept an agreement that could disproportionately increase imports while forgoing comparable export openings for the U.S. 

Our goal is an agreement that on balance offers net trade benefits to the U.S. 

dairy industry. To get there, market access into the region’s most protected dairy 

markets—Japan and Canada—is imperative. Our negotiators have worked extremely hard and moved the ball forward on key issues such as expanding access 

to the Japanese market and improving safeguards surrounding the use of common 

food names in the face of the EU’s abuse of geographical indications to erect barriers 

to U.S. exports. However, Japan needs to do more; in particular it needs to provide 

avenues for U.S. export growth in all areas. Likewise, Canada has yet to put forward an offer on dairy. In order for TPP to be successful and truly comprehensive, 

it is imperative that Canada provide significant market openings for the full range 

of U.S. dairy products. 

TPA support is not a blank check on TPP; TPP must be considered on its own 

merits. However, without TPA, we will not be able to seize the opportunities that 

well-negotiated agreements may ultimately present. That is why we urge Congress 

to move forward with TPA without delay and simultaneously actively engage in the 

final stages of TPP negotiations. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS M. SUBER, JAMES MULHERN, 

President, President & CEO, 

U.S. Dairy Export Council; National Milk Producers Federation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kappelman. 

Mr. Guenther. Did I pronounce your name correctly? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes. Yes, you did. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, 5 minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. GUENTHER, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY, UNITED FRESH PRODUCE 

ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, and Ranking 

Member Peterson, for providing United Fresh Produce Association 

with the opportunity to share our perspective from the fresh fruit 

and vegetable sector about the importance of trade to our industry 

and to agriculture in general. 

Exports and imports are crucial to the viability of many of our 

member businesses, so we are very appreciative of having the 

chance to elaborate on why promoting trade is so important to U.S. 

agriculture. This hearing is particularly timely given the ongoing 

debate within Congress regarding renewing Trade Promotion Authority, and the U.S. efforts to negotiate trade deals such as the 


11406007.eps
23 

Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 

First, a bit of background about our organization. United Fresh 

Produce Association was founded in 1904, and we are the only 

trade association that represents all segments of the fresh fruit and 

vegetable production chain across the United States. While most of 

our members are based here in the U.S., export and import markets are essential to our members as they seek to ensure business 

viability and meet consumer demand. 

As with all agriculture sectors represented here today, the export 

and import situation for fresh fruits and vegetables is constantly 

evolving. Recent information from the Economic Research Service 

at USDA forecast fresh fruit and vegetable exports for Fiscal Year 

2015 with a value of nearly $8 billion. Exports to key export markets such as Canada, Europe, and Japan are expected to continue 

expanding. 

Where we have seen the most difference in recent years, however, is in the area of imports. It is worth noting that while fruit 

and vegetable exports have doubled since the mid-1990s, fruit and 

vegetable imports in the same time have nearly tripled. Factors 

that contribute to this include trade policies that do not address 

non-tariff trade barriers to U.S. exports of fruits and vegetables. 

We have experienced that as tariff levels have been brought down, 

there have been corresponding increases in non-tariff barriers. Examples of non-tariff barriers include, but are not limited to, restrictive import and administrative procedures, or product or processing 

specifications. Exports of commodities such as apples, pears, peaches, citrus, and potatoes to countries including Korea and Mexico 

have been limited due to non-tariff barriers, among other examples. 

If we are to ensure that export and import levels are put back 

on an even keel, United Fresh urges Congress and the Administration to ensure that any future trade deal creates new ways to break 

down these artificial barriers using sound science. We also urge the 

creation of a dispute settlement process that resolves non-tariff 

trade issues in a timely manner. 

We also know that promoting free trade can work for the fresh 

produce industry, and have seen results from a variety of trade 

agreements. One recent example is an announcement earlier this 

year by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that 

China has agreed to allow all apple varieties into the Chinese market, which is the largest destination for U.S. agriculture products. 

This announcement was a culmination of a sustained effort by a coalition of apple industry organizations, and provides apple growers 

with comprehensive access to this major market for the first time. 

But there are certainly other examples of how the fresh produce industry could benefit significantly from enhanced trade opportunities. For example, the National Potato Council estimates that the 

adoption of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement could 

increase fresh potato exports to Mexico by nearly $150 million a 

year, up from the current level of $39 million a year. 

The fresh produce industry knows that we must continue to be 

vocal about the need to improve trade relations and policies, members of the produce industry must do what they can to be ready to 

take advantage of business opportunities in foreign markets. ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
24 

gress and the Administration need to do more. It is essential that 

the President and Congress have the necessary authority to promote robust trade policies that maintain current opportunities, and 

as in the case of fruits and vegetables, ensures trade equilibrium. 

United Fresh believes it is in agriculture’s best interests for Congress to expeditiously enact TPA. Such action would allow these 

critical trade deals to move forward and provide producers with 

much-needed tools in their efforts to be successful in the marketplace. 

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, as well as the entire Committee 

for all you have done to ensure fresh fruit and vegetable producers 

have trade opportunities, as well as the tools to address a multitude of trade challenges. To build on the good work that you have 

done, United Fresh urges the Committee and the entire Congress 

to enact Trade Promotion Authority to maximize trade opportunities for America’s agricultural producers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guenther follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. GUENTHER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR

PUBLIC POLICY, UNITED FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson, for providing 

United Fresh Produce Association with an opportunity to share our perspective from 

the fresh fruit and vegetable sector about the importance of trade to our industry 

and to agriculture in general. Exports and imports are crucial to the viability of 

many of our members’ businesses, so we are very appreciative of having a chance 

to elaborate on why promoting trade is so important to U.S. agriculture. This hearing is particularly timely given the ongoing debate within Congress regarding renewing Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the U.S. efforts to negotiate trade 

deals such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and 

Investment Partnership (TTIP). 

First, a bit of background about our organization. United Fresh Produce Association was founded in 1904. We are the only trade association that represents all segments of the fresh fruit and vegetable production chain across the United States. 

While most of our members are based here in the U.S., export and import markets 

are essential to our members as they seek to ensure business viability and meet 

consumer demand. 

As with all the agriculture sectors represented here today, the export and import 

situation for fresh fruits and vegetables is constantly evolving. Recent information 

from the Economic Research Service at USDA forecasts fresh fruit and vegetable exports for Fiscal Year 2015 with a value of nearly $8 billion. Exports to key markets 

such as Canada, Europe and Japan are expected to continue expanding. Where we 

have seen the most difference in recent years however, is in the area of imports. 

According to USDA statistics, horticultural produce imports are expected to exceed 

$50 billion in Fiscal Year 2015. Fresh fruit and vegetable imports account for more 

than 1⁄3 of that total value. 

It is worth noting that while fruit and vegetable exports have doubled since the 

mid-1990s, fruit and vegetable imports in that same time period have nearly tripled. 

Factors that contribute to this include U.S. import policies that are beneficial to foreign commodities and continued non-tariff trade barriers to U.S. exports in some 

countries. Trade policies are essential to putting export and import levels back on 

an even keel. In particular, non-tariff trade barriers are becoming a growing problem. As tariff levels have been brought down, there has been a corresponding increase in non-tariff barriers. Examples of non-tariff barriers include, but are not 

limited to, restrictive import and administrative procedures or product or processing 

specifications. Exports of commodities such as apples, pears, peaches, citrus and potatoes to countries including Korea and Mexico have been limited due to non-tariff 

barriers, among other examples. With respect to produce, United Fresh urges Congress and the Administration to ensure that future trade deals create new ways to 

break down these artificial barriers using sound science. We also urge the creation 

of a dispute settlement process that resolves non-tariff trade issues in a timely manner. 

25 

On a separate but relevant topic, I would like to also add that the ability of producers to move commodities in and out of our nation’s ports in a timely manner is 

also crucial to achieving a trade balance for fruits and vegetables. We at United 

Fresh are hearing increasingly from our members about port delays that are due 

at least in part to inadequate resources or lack of personnel at port facilities to complete examinations of shipments expeditiously. Our members have also raised questions about examination procedures and logistics and their impact on the movement 

of product. We welcome the opportunity to work with Members of this Committee 

to address funding shortfalls and policy priorities that affect ports operations to ensure perishable fruits and vegetables move safely and quickly. We also welcome the 

opportunity to work with you and others on how best to address issues such as the 

recent slowdown in operations at West Coast port facilities to ensure that commodities continue to move through our nation’s ports. 

Another issue relevant to the movement of fresh produce into the United States 

is a recent proposal by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to 

replace the region- and commodity-specific phytosanitary import requirements that 

are currently codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. APHIS proposes to 

use general phytosanitary requirements or performance standards that can be applied to all fruit and vegetable commodities. We appreciate the work that the agency 

has made to help interested stakeholders understand the nature of the proposal and 

how it would be implemented. However, many of our members continue to have concerns about this proposal and how it could affect the potential introduction of pest 

and disease risks into the United States. We pledge to do all we can to work with 

our members, APHIS and the Members of this Committee to ensure that U.S. import policies enhance the safety of fruits and vegetables imported into the United 

States, while also promoting economic opportunities and meeting consumer demand. 

We know that promoting free trade can work for the fresh produce industry and 

have seen the results from a variety of trade agreements. For example, since the 

full implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2009, U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico have grown more than 50 percent to a current level 

of over $41 billion—fresh and processed fruit exports grew from less than $2 billion 

to more than $3 billion in 2014. Furthermore, export markets are essential to the 

economic well-being of many of America’s key fruit and vegetable production areas. 

Just two states provide striking evidence of that. For the U.S.’s top exporter of agricultural products, California, exports were valued at nearly $20 billion in 2013 and 

supported almost 150,000 jobs. Another top producing state, Florida’s, exports were 

nearly $4.5 billion in 2013 and supported almost 33,000 jobs. 

Leveling the playing field of specialty crop exports and imports is highly beneficial 

to our industry and the overall economy. And we believe this Committee has demonstrated a recognition of this position. This Committee has already made a major 

commitment to promoting balanced agricultural trade through provisions of the 

2014 Farm Bill. United Fresh is the coordinating body of the Specialty Crop Farm 

Bill Alliance, a coalition of over 120 specialty crop organizations that came together 

in 2002 to assess farm bill programs. For each successive farm bill, the Alliance has 

provided a set of recommendations about how those programs could maximize the 

ability of specialty crop producers to be successful in providing Americans and others around the world with an abundant supply of our commodities. The Alliance is 

grateful that in the 2014 Farm Bill this Committee acted on our recommendations 

to enhance and facilitate trade. More specifically, as the Alliance recommended, the 

2014 Farm Bill reauthorized and maintained funding of $200 million annually for 

the Market Access Program to encourage exports and promotion of foreign market 

activities. The farm bill also reauthorized the Technical Assistance for Specialty 

Crops program for $9 million annually to addresses sanitary and phytosanitary 

issues, as well as technical barriers to U.S. exports, which I mentioned is one of the 

leading factors in the current difference between exports and imports of fresh fruits 

and vegetables. In addition, the Alliance supported the farm bill provision authorizing the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Affairs 

to focus on agriculture trade priorities. These programs are key to helping specialty 

crop producers be innovative and proactive in pursuing foreign market opportunities. Furthermore, these farm bill provisions send a strong signal that this Committee recognizes how essential trade policy is to the success of specialty crops and 

to agriculture broadly. 

And our industry is being proactive in pursuing opportunities in international 

markets. One recent example is the announcement early this year by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that China has agreed to allow 

all apple varieties into the Chinese market, which is the largest destination for U.S. 

agriculture products. This announcement was the culmination of a sustained effort 

by a coalition of apple industry organizations and provides apple growers with comVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
26 

prehensive access to this major market for the first time. But there are certainly 

other examples of how the fresh produce industry could benefit significantly from 

enhanced trade opportunities. For example, the National Potato Council estimates 

that adoption of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement could increase fresh 

potato exports to Mexico by nearly $150 million a year, up from the current level 

of $39 million. 

The fresh produce industry knows that we must continue to be vocal about the 

need for improved trade relations and policies. But as members of the produce industry must do what they can to be ready to take advantage of business opportunities in foreign markets and meet consumer demand here at home, Congress and the 

Administration need to do more. It is essential that the President and the Congress 

have the necessary authority to promote robust trade policies that maintain current 

opportunities and, as in the case of fruits and vegetables, to ensure trade equilibrium. As we speak, Congress has the opportunity to pass Trade Promotion Authorization (TPA), crucial legislation that would allow the White House to submit 

trade agreements to Congress for a straight up or down vote, without adding 

amendments. Historically, every President dating back to FDR has been granted authority to negotiate trade agreements. TPA was last enacted in 2002 and expired 

in 2007. 

Spurring interest again this year in TPA are major trade deals in the works that 

have industry groups, business executives, consumer advocates and Members of 

Congress weighing in with various perspectives. The Trans-Pacific Partnership 

(TPP), a massive trade deal in which the U.S. is looking to enter with 11 other AsiaPacific countries, would be the largest trade deal in history, opening markets and 

expanding access to U.S. agriculture exports to more than 800 million people. So 

massive, TPP would account for nearly 40 percent of the global economy. 

The U.S. is also negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 

(TTIP) with the European Union, an agreement that would expand access to Madein-America goods and services through strategic partnerships in European markets. 

The relationship between the U.S. and EU is the largest in the world, with $1 trillion of goods and services traded and nearly $4 trillion invested in each other’s 

economies—all of which supports about 13 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Facing opposition in Europe from various environmental, progressive and national 

entities, European agriculture officials met recently here in Washington, D.C., with 

the Administration and key Congressional leaders to further reiterate the significance of the deal and immediate need for action. United Fresh believes it is in agriculture’s best interest, including fresh fruits and vegetables, for Congress to expeditiously enact TPA. Such action will allow these critical trade deals to move forward 

and provide our producers with a much-needed tool in their efforts to be successful 

in the marketplace. We urge Congress to pass TPA now. 

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Peterson, as well as the entire Committee for all you’ve done to ensure that 

fresh fruit and vegetable producers have trade opportunities, as well as the tools 

to address a multitude of trade challenges. To build on the good work that has been 

done by you, United Fresh urges the entire Congress to support Trade Promotion 

Authority to maximize trade opportunities for America’s agriculture producers. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and allowing United Fresh to share our perspective on this important issue. I look forward to answering any questions and 

United Fresh looks forward to working with you on this and other crucial issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Guenther. I appreciate it. I appreciate all of your presentations. 

I would remind Members that they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at the 

start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in the 

order of their arrival, and I appreciate the Members understanding. 

With that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Again, thank you, gentlemen, for being here. 

Mr. Stallman, you mentioned in your conversation with us certain uncertainties with respect to TTIP, and the things that are 

going on. There are those who oppose TPA that are using those uncertainties as a reason to shy away from passing TPA. Can you respond to their arguments? 

27 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would argue just the opposite. I think you have a lot more certainty on a couple of fronts if 

you have TPA in terms of completing a successful negotiation. 

First, the Congress gets to define what they want in terms of a consultative role in that they get to define what they would like to see 

in terms of negotiating objectives. That provides more certainty 

from a policy perspective. But even more importantly, during the 

negotiations—and now, negotiation is a continuum. It goes a long 

time, like any other negotiation, back and forth, offers, counteroffers. But countries aren’t going to put their best offers on the 

table unless they have a certainty, or feel like they have a certainty, that the U.S. is committed to completing the negotiation 

and the trade agreement. And so the certainty of having a good 

agreement is certainly enhanced, I believe, by having Trade Promotion Authority in place. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. 

This question is for any of you who want to take it on. All four 

of you have mentioned in one form or another, the importance of 

passing TPA. Can you comment about what the impact would be 

if we don’t pass TPA? 

Dr. HILL. Well, as I pointed out in my comments, that if we don’t 

pass TPA, the likelihood of passing TPP is dramatically reduced. 

And if that happens, other countries in the Asian region will do bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements, and we will be left 

out, and it will put us, not only the pork industry but all of agriculture and our whole economy, at a great disadvantage as far as 

being able to trade with those Asian-Pacific countries. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, I would say personally, it does not allow 

our negotiators the strongest possible tools to be able to negotiate 

a strong trade agreement that can be the best benefit for our members in the fresh produce industry. 

As I mentioned before, these issues related to non-tariff trade 

barriers are extremely important that we bring these down, because they are the major reason preventing increased exports for 

fruits and vegetables around the world. And without having TPA, 

it does not put our negotiators in a position to be able to strongly 

negotiate with their counterparts in that area as well. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. I would agree with all the comments. Case in 

point, when we did the free trade agreement with Korea, we were 

put in the driver’s seat because we were first. As we are standing 

still and not signing new agreements, we are put in a less advantageous position. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, I certainly concur with my colleagues here 

at the table. Not having TPA is going to cause the U.S. to be left 

out of trade negotiations to a great extent. We may engage in trade 

negotiations, but completing successful negotiations will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without having TPA because the 

other countries are going to believe we are not serious about a 

trade agenda, and it is very important that that is a component of 

the discussion as you go into the tough negotiations it takes to get 

a good deal. 

The CHAIRMAN. TPA basically allows for an up-or-down vote on 

the agreement that was made. If I am a country other than the 

United States, and I am looking at 535 additional negotiators withVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
28 

out TPA, is that an impact? In other words, if our trade representatives are trying to negotiate a deal, and the people on the other 

side know that that deal has to come to Congress so we can amend 

it, change it, are they likely to make a deal with our trade rep 

without TPA? 

Mr. STALLMAN. If I were sitting across the table, I wouldn’t do 

it. And let me give you Japan as an example. They are trying to 

reform their agricultural sector to rationalize it, and in the process, 

they know that they are going to have to create greater access to 

their markets, but those are very politically-difficult decisions. 

What elected leader in Japan is going to take those politically-difficult decisions, take all the heat from that, and then with the prospect of the agreement coming back over here after they have laid 

it on the table, and being basically chopped up by amendment and 

turned into something that is unacceptable. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you gentlemen. 

With that, I recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Mr. 

Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kappelman, are we still in the situation where our dairy 

products going to Canada still has tariffs on it? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Well, actually, if you look at some of the numbers, it will show that there is quite a bit of product moving to 

Canada, but that is actually under a processing agreement where 

it moves and then comes right back. So that is where some of 

those—and there is actually very little product going into Canada 

because they were, I guess, excluded—dairy was excluded in 

NAFTA. 

Mr. PETERSON. Right. But coming this way, there are basically 

no tariffs on the Canadian dairy coming this way. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Exactly. 

Mr. PETERSON. That has been one of my real burs in my saddle 

over the NAFTA agreement. And whether, politically they are 

going to be able to move the Canadians where they need to go, I 

am right, am I, that these Canadian co-ops are buying up—and 

they just bought Davisco in Minnesota here a few months ago. And 

one of them is now the number one processor in the U.S., from the 

information that I have gotten. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes, in my neighborhood, I have two Canadianowned facilities; one by a co-op, one by a proprietary, Agropur and 

Saputo. And it is interesting because if I were a Canadian dairy 

producer, they are thinking totally defensive. And they need to 

think a little bit offensively because they have tremendous opportunity to produce milk. Their processors want to grow their industry, and yet they said they want to come to the table or play the 

game with TPP, but on dairy, they are standing on the sideline. 

They haven’t put on a uniform yet. So we would be very, very hesitant to support TPP if Canada cannot bring to the table anything 

on dairy. 

Mr. PETERSON. So your position is that something has to be done. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. PETERSON. And, Mr. Stallman, you are a rice farmer, right? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes. 

29 

Mr. PETERSON. So Mr. Froman has told me that he thinks they 

are going to get some access for rice in Japan. Do you think that 

is realistic? 

Mr. STALLMAN. I believe they will get some additional access. 

Rice is the most sensitive product in Japan and protected the most. 

There is no question about it. 

Mr. PETERSON. Some additional access. What does that mean? 

Like—— 

Mr. STALLMAN. More than we have now. And actually, if we can 

get more than we have now, that would be a start in that effort. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. And that is my concern, that we need to 

make some progress in Japan. We need to make progress in Mexico 

for sure in the supply managed areas. Having watched the NAFTA 

situation, the side agreements and how they weren’t enforced and 

so forth, I am concerned about where we would end up, at the end 

of the day. Are we going to get traded off for auto manufacturing 

or whatever? What I have been looking for is some pretty good assurance that we are going to make progress in those areas because 

I am skeptical, having met with Canadians and Japanese. I don’t 

know, I mean I hope that we can get movement but I am skeptical. 

So I guess that is my main point, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. DesJarlais, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our 

panel. It is a great hearing today. 

I represent Tennessee’s fourth Congressional district, and it happens to be home to the largest Farm Bureau in the nation. Mr. 

Stallman, I am sure you know Lacy Upchurch and Joe Pearson, 

they were up to visit a couple of weeks ago and asked to send their 

regards to you. 

Like many other individuals here, I come from a rural area with 

a largely agriculture-based economy, and just literally over the past 

week or 2, we have been visited by Tyson Foods, soybean growers. 

I was in a visit with McKee Bakery, makers of products like Little 

Debbie. Their interest in the sugar trade. Charles Hord of the 

Cattlemen’s Association has been in contact with me. So great interest from our state in regards to today’s topic. The farmers and 

ranchers everywhere I go have been very outspoken in their support of the commercial opportunities that this trade deal presents, 

especially regarding the potential increase in access to the Japanese markets. 

Mr. Stallman, I believe you stated in your testimony that U.S. 

agriculture exports to Japan exceeded $13.4 billion in 2014, this despite Japan’s high tariffs and restrictive policies that inhibit U.S. 

exports. What outcomes do you, or anyone else on the panel, foresee in the negotiations with Japan in regards to overcoming these 

trade barriers? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, some economists are basically saying that 

our growth in agricultural exports, that if we have a successful 

TPP agreement, that 70 percent of our ag export gains will be in 

the Japan market. And because it is a high-value market, they 

have a very strong economy, and when you talk about the meat 

sector particularly, that makes a big difference. And they have protected those industries with high tariffs and import restrictions for 

30 

so long, and now they are trying to figure out a way to engage in 

the negotiations and provide some offers that are meaningful. If all 

that occurs and it remains to be seen, but we are on the right path, 

if all that occurs, that could be a huge increase for the U.S. ag export market, and they could move up the list. They are number 

four now, but they could move up the list to being an even larger 

importer of our products, of our exports. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Does anyone else on the panel have a 

comment? 

Dr. HILL. That $13 billion you referred to, over $2 billion of that 

was pork. As you know, when these negotiations got started, Japan 

really just wanted to throw us a bone, which we didn’t accept, and 

we—I guess you could say we raised Cain about it. To the credit 

of our trade negotiators, there has been a lot of progress made. We 

reserve the right to see what the final outcome is, but we are confident that we will not get a TPP deal if we don’t have TPA. 

I know Congressman Peterson has gone, he had another meeting 

but when we use the word negotiation, that is what it means, negotiating. We can’t fix everything. We have to negotiate. And I agree, 

we need a better deal with Canada, but I hope we don’t hold the 

negotiations and hold one issue up and miss the big picture here 

when we try to get TPA and TPP passed, because it is a huge, huge 

opportunity for the U.S. economy. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Mr. Kappelman, or, Mr. Guenther, did 

you have anything to add? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes, I would. In regards to Japan, first of all, 

I agree that TPA is going to be absolutely critical because we have 

very little access to Japan. Limited TRQs. They have a fairly substantial dairy industry, but every country really protects their 

dairy industry. They want milk for their kids. And we understand 

that, but at the same time, their Administration knows their farming population is aging, and that land has other uses, and the Administration, we believe, wants to start opening the door. But, they 

can’t lay all their cards out if they know they are going to get left 

high and dry. And that is where TPA really comes in. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Gentlemen, I thank you all for your comments. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first start off with dairy. Could you tell us who are the 

largest countries that are exporters of dairy into the United States? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Well, I would say that in the top five is, number 

one, New Zealand. New Zealand, and it is no surprise, they export 

over 90 percent of their production. New Zealand’s industry, by the 

way, is only about as large as California’s dairy industry, so—— 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN.—they export a lot. We see them as a giant be- cause it is most of their production. So they have about $750 million of exports to the U.S. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. And then we have, from Europe, it is mostly 

specialty cheeses coming from European countries. 

31 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. All right. Let me ask you then, do 

you see any reason for us to be concerned that TPP may provide 

these countries with greater access to the United States market 

and, therefore, having some downward pressure on our own industry in this county? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. That is the worry, because with TPP, we have 

in those 12 nations, we have dairy’s biggest opportunities in Japan 

and Canada, and we have dairy’s biggest threat which might be 

New Zealand. And that is why, when we are opening the doors to 

trade, you might open the door in your house and let the cat out, 

but sometimes the dog will come in. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. It is important: 15 years ago, this dairy industry in the U.S. was intimidated by global trade. We are not anymore. We can compete. We can compete at a high level, but on a 

level playing field. So that is why getting this good agreement and 

TPP is important. We are willing to compete, but we need access 

and exchange. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. All right. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A lot of talk about Japan here, and concern about how they will 

act. For everybody on the panel, I will probably start with Mr. 

Guenther, but, with the access we have been looking for for rice, 

pork, beef, wheat, dairy, do you see that the opportunities are really going to open up, ongoing, is it going to be a true negotiation 

that results in significant tangible new markets for our American 

products? 

Dr. HILL. Well, I can speak for pork. The answer is absolutely 

yes. And we can say that for a lot of our other industries, particularly in agriculture, we typically develop new technology, adopt 

new technology, and become the most efficient producers in the 

world of agricultural products. So as was just pointed out, there is 

no fear that we can’t compete and be low-cost, efficient producers. 

So I would say that the potential is, again, huge for not only pork, 

but agricultural products and for other products that we produce 

in the United States. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, I would agree with those comments. I think 

that when you look at the robust economy of Japan that the potential for increased access for fruits and vegetables is there, and we 

certainly want to continue to push forward in that way. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Stallman? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, absolutely. I think that there is great promise in the TPP negotiations with Japan, as you referenced, but also 

we have talked about Canada, both highly developed countries, citizens with good incomes, good appetites, and as the world’s greatest 

competitor in the agricultural sector, we can get our products in 

there as long as the playing field is level. But until we have TPA, 

and we can complete the negotiation, we can’t get to that point 

where the playing field will be leveled sufficiently to allow additional exports into those markets. 

32 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, speaking of rice, just for an additional 

minute here, how much rice do you think is sitting in cold storage 

in Japan right now? 

Mr. STALLMAN. There is probably some. There has been ever 

since they were required to take the quota. Rice is a difficult subject. First, most U.S. rice is not of the type that the Japanese eat. 

California has the opportunity to provide some that they do. And 

so our goal has always been to try to expand those quotas as much 

as we can to get rice in because, once you get in, establish a market, and more importantly, hopefully giving their consumers a 

choice about what products they are able to buy, and let them try 

other rice from other countries that eventually we can expand that. 

They are going to have to rationalize their whole protection and 

subsidy system over there before we can make great inroads, but 

they are in the process of doing that. So it is slow, but we are making progress. And directionally it is correct, and we need to expedite that process with a successful conclusion for TPP. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you. 

Dr. HILL. Could I just follow up by pointing out that when we 

trade with foreign countries, a lot of times we are trading—I will 

take the pig as an example. We trade parts of that pig that are not 

valued in our domestic market. In the U.S., we value the muscle 

meats, the bacons, the loins, shoulders, but we export all the parts 

of the pig that we don’t value to these foreign markets, where they 

are sometimes considered delicacies, and we get higher value for 

them than we do for the muscle cuts. 

Same in the poultry industry. I mean if you go to China, you eat 

chicken feet. I don’t think they serve very many of those in the 

United States. 

It is estimated that offal and these snouts and feet and tails, and 

all that come off of that pig that we export, adds almost $9 to every 

pig that we raise in the United States. So it is a very, very important market for us. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay. Mr. Kappelman? And, just comment if you 

would. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes, and so, first of all, Canada is—Japan, we 

think we are starting to make some progress. I already referred to 

Japan, but Canada is obviously a prime market for us. They are 

right there. Their dairy segment escaped the first time with 

NAFTA, and we have to make sure that with TPP that doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, it seems the U.S. is the one that absorbs 

most of that trade deficit, and we have to do better next time 

around. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Adams, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Agriculture is very important to North Carolina. It is an important industry for our state that must be supported through policies 

that promote good job growth, but in North Carolina we still remember the more than 200,000 jobs that were lost in the state 

from NAFTA. Job losses were certified under the trade agreement 

assistance programs as loss to offshoring or imports since NAFTA. 

So any new agreements must carefully be considered in order to 

33 

ensure that our workers will see an improvement in their livelihoods. 

Mr. Hill, my question to you, I was looking at the graphs in your 

testimony. They show the volume of pork exports has overall increased since 1989. Does the data that you show here, does this 

data show if the growth in exports came from new markets or was 

simply from increased demand by countries that were already trading with the U.S.? 

Dr. HILL. Most of that increase in exports is the result of free 

trade agreements with now 18 different countries. We send more 

pork to those 18 countries with free trade agreements than we do 

the other 148 countries that we do business with. So it just shows 

the importance of free trade agreements, in my opinion. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Mr. Guenther, North Carolina is a growing 

state with specialty crops. How will supporting TPP promote opportunities for growers in our state? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, as we mentioned before, having the ability 

to increase different market opportunities for different products 

and specialty crops, and fruits and vegetables in particular, is 

going to be critical. And TPP allows that opportunity because that 

is such a robust potential market for fresh produce in terms of commodities that are available there, or can be available there. So that 

is one reason why we are very supportive of the effort. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. To follow up, what is your understanding of 

the TPP’s rapid settlement mechanism, and are you concerned that 

other countries could use this provision to undermine U.S. laws? 

Mr. GUENTHER. I am not familiar with that at this point, ma’am, 

but we can certainly get you an answer for that. 

Ms. ADAMS. All right. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I appreciate you being here today. 

I want to start with Mr. Stallman. I am concerned about some 

of the things that our trading partners do to get around their obligations, without triggering WTO enforcement remedies. I will give 

you an example. Obviously, we know that China is subsidizing cotton at levels that manipulate global prices, and there is just not a 

whole lot we can do about that. Do you think TPA should include 

some provisions that strengthen the enforcement remedies under 

our trade laws to make sure that U.S. industries have some recourse when our trading partners evade their trade obligations? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, as a general principle, all trade agreements 

should have enforcement mechanisms, otherwise, the terms are 

fairly meaningless. And what we have always asked for are for 

those enforcement mechanisms to be transparent, to be timely, that 

is two main items which, in many cases, with current dispute settlement procedures, that is not the case. And so we always want 

to see those in the trade agreements as we get them, and that certainly has been one of the negotiating objectives. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. We have had about a 40 percent decline in cotton 

acres in my district. I don’t know if that is consistent with nationwide cotton producers, but I am sure that what is going on in 

34 

China has a large impact on our planting decisions in my district 

in Arkansas. 

Let me sort of expand on an issue that Congressman LaMalfa 

addressed, and that is with regard to rice. I know the American 

Farm Bureau Federation is an advocate for all production agriculture, and in the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the rice industry was somewhat excluded. I know there are some cultural 

sensitivities with regard to rice. You addressed that as it applies 

to Japan with regard to the short grain market that they have, 

whereas we do produce a lot of long grain, medium grain, certainly 

in my part of the country. But I am concerned that rice could possibly be left out again in the TPP, or become somewhat of a sticking point. What position will the American Farm Bureau Federation take if that should happen, or with any other commodity for 

that matter? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, since American Farm Bureau Federation is 

a general farm organization, so we strongly support the negotiations, but we reserve the right to do an economic analysis of those 

negotiations once they are completed to determine their impact on 

American agriculture. We obviously analyze the impact on various 

commodities, but at the end of the day, the impact has to be positive overall for American agriculture for us to support the final 

agreement. That has been an operational policy of ours for well 

over a decade now. 

And so to get to the crux of the question, we seek gains for all 

commodities, and we want our negotiators to strongly pursue those, 

but at the end of the day, we have to look at what the overall impact of the trade agreement is before we decide whether to support 

it or not. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I appreciate that. My concern is that, as was the 

case in Korea, that the rice industry will say, ‘‘We are going to take 

one for the team to get this deal done,’’ with the long-term vision 

being that it is important for us to do this in order for the next 

step to take place with TPP. 

Mr. STALLMAN. I think we have made the strong point to the Administration, to our negotiators, that we didn’t want to see a repeat 

necessarily as to what happened in South Korea that Japan should 

reform its protected agricultural sector. Part of that reform should 

be to allow products in for those sensitive products, and rice is certainly one of those. We are going to, as I already said, we will get 

some additional access. How much, is still on the negotiating table. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. And the last point. Have we resolved the 

issue with Vietnam that may have been a problem there as far as 

TPA is concerned, or do you not see that being a problem? 

Mr. STALLMAN. I don’t know the answer to that question. I do not 

know. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. 

All right, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Plaskett, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. 

I had a great interest in the discussion you were having, in particular, Mr. Guenther, about fresh fruit and vegetables. Coming 

35 

from the Virgin Islands, that is the product that we hold very dear, 

and are interested in increasing in exports. You talked about TPP 

and the impediments that non-tariff trade barriers had. I know 

that some of those include restrictive import and administrative 

procedures, but what are some of—can you give us examples of 

how this has been a difficulty for that area? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes. Usually, when we talk about things like 

this, these are really pest or disease-type barriers that are happening where there are phytosanitary-type issues. Where you can 

see things related to that is when you are looking at these types 

of decisions that are made that are based on potential problems 

that may or may not be in terms of the barriers, but also in terms 

of what is the best process to address these barriers, and whether 

it is bringing people here to the U.S. to address them in terms of 

science and understanding what is happening here in terms of protocols, or the other way around in terms of other countries bringing 

a product here to the United States. We have to make sure that 

these processes related to whether they are phytosanitary pest and 

disease-type issues, are addressed in the most scientific way that 

we are ensuring that there is not an evasiveness in terms of bringing them here to the United States. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So would that not be an impediment to imports 

coming into this country, as opposed to—— 

Mr. GUENTHER. It goes both ways, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And are they more restrictive in the import market or—— 

Mr. GUENTHER. I would say that certainly, when both sides of a 

negotiation in terms of countries trying to bring product here into 

the United States, and us getting access to other countries, there 

are certain protocols that each country has that allows that process 

to move forward. 

I think that when you look at, in terms of the way that we have 

seen imports come here to the United States that we feel very 

strongly that our process is working, but also we need to have access to other countries as well. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So if it works both ways—I am just trying to understand why our numbers, the American exports, have not grown 

as quickly as the imports coming in here. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Sure. 

Ms. PLASKETT. If theirs have tripled, and we have the same restrictions based on tests—— 

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT.—then it has to be some other impediment, right, 

or barrier? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, I think that some of it is tariff—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. It is a process, administrative process? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Just some of it is tariff barriers, okay, so they 

have tariff barriers that come down here in the United States. 

Ms. PLASKETT. When you say tariff barriers, what do you mean 

specifically that is causing that? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Basically, there are trade agreements that have 

happened over the past—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. 

36 

Mr. GUENTHER.—NAFTA, for instance, trade agreements with 

Chile, Peru, major countries that we have imports in, so those tariffs have come down. We have not seen reciprocal barriers come 

down in terms of those areas—or in those countries as well. That 

is one area we have to look at, but also the continued non-tariff 

trade barriers, as I mentioned in my testimony, of exports into 

countries that are not tariff-based. 

Ms. PLASKETT. How much of it is based on consumer demand 

or—— 

Mr. GUENTHER. A lot of it is based on consumer demand as well. 

It is a very good point to point out because what we have seen here 

in this country is we now have a consumer demand of year-round 

supplies of products, so the kind of seasonal issues that related to 

that where we are not producing certain commodities here in this 

country, and other countries can provide that, is an important area 

as well that we have seen increases in imports. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And what countries do you find is the greatest opportunities for exporting? 

Mr. GUENTHER. I think we continue to see the Asian communities, European communities as well, when—and some—when we 

look at these trade agreements that we are currently looking at. 

Mexico and Canada continue to be a viable market as well for our 

exports. We continue to try to increase access there—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. GUENTHER.—because they are trading partners. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen. 

I appreciate you being here. I represent the northern half of Michigan, so I work with our Michigan Farm Bureau. And, Mr. 

Kappelman, I am a Packer fan, so I know you live near Green Bay. 

And we produce in northern Michigan quite varied products 

throughout my district especially. 

And I have been listening to the debate here. I am a surgeon, 

I am not a farmer, and I know how important this trade is. You 

have all been advocating for it and it all sounds good, but I do have 

a few specific questions that I would like to ask. 

Mr. Guenther, we produce a lot of fruit and vegetables in northern Michigan. Where are the—particular to fruit and vegetables, 

which we do a lot of great stuff in Michigan, apples, cherries, as 

you probably know, can you give me just a brief—how is the free 

trade agreement, specific to those commodities, going to help us in 

Michigan? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, when you look at the export opportunities 

such as for apples and cherries, the Asian market in particular can 

be very beneficial, and those are important areas that we can focus 

on. Those are areas we are really going to try to spend a lot of time 

on in terms of increasing access to those areas. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Kappelman, something came up which I 

wasn’t really aware of, the Ranking Member mentioned the Canadian NAFTA agreement excluded the dairy situation, and he was 

concerned about their dairy industry becoming pretty strong and 

37 

we are not able to compete with them very well. What is the input 

to the negotiators? How does this happen that here is a major— 

where it is a—American milk producers are involved with the 

NAFTA agreement, how does this happen? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, I was in high school at the time. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Yes, but how does this happen where we are talking about negotiating free trade agreements that are fair, and it all 

sounds positive, but here is this thing that happened that is not 

all that positive, so what happens, and—— 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, I—— 

Mr. BENISHEK.—do you have input to that process? 

Mr. GUENTHER. I understand that issue goes back to the original 

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was a predecessor to 

NAFTA, and dairy was left out of that. And then they left dairy 

out of NAFTA again. 

And, it goes back to their code of system. They put up really tall 

walls around their dairy industry, and they are really trying to protect it, and they just are standing by their producers. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, Mr. Stallman, what does the input that the 

industry has, towards the negotiations, with the Administration 

given negotiating this trade authority, right, how do they know 

your interest? What is the communication process there? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, there are a variety of ways, and I am going 

to just speak about what we do in Farm Bureau—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Okay. 

Mr. STALLMAN.—because our colleagues in the other commodity 

groups do the same thing. There are trade advisory committees 

that advise our negotiators directly. We, as well as our colleagues, 

have very direct discussions and consultations, and—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Does this happen in real-time? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Okay. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Real-time. There are those of us who have security clearances, we get real-time phone calls from our negotiators 

if issues are coming up that they want to have input on. We provide input ahead of time about the things that we would like to 

see. So I feel like we have a great deal of input. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, Michigan not only has a great agriculture 

industry, it has an automotive industry as well. You were talking 

about Japan a little bit, and I want to see our stuff being able to 

be sold in Japan, our ag stuff, but also our car stuff. So it concerns 

me that there is—talking about one sector or the other maybe having favorability in the agreement. I want to support an agreement 

because I believe in free trade, but I want to have a fair deal too. 

So I am just trying to find out how this all works better so I can 

support both those industries in my state, and not have one agree 

to one and then ditch the other, like what happened with the milk 

guys. So do we all have input to that? Anybody familiar with any 

of these agreements personally? 

Dr. HILL. I would say that everybody has the opportunity for 

input. Some organizations, some groups are more active than others. We have been very active. The pork industry has been very active. 

38 

I don’t know if you are aware but in your state, they just announced that there is going to be a new packing plant. I am not 

sure if it is in your district or not, but it is partially owned by producers, and they will slaughtering pigs and they will want to export product from that facility in the international market. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding.] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 

Representative Kuster for allowing me go as I have an appointment I need to go to. 

Gentlemen, I appreciate your testimony, and these two trade 

agreements both with our Asian trading partners and the Europeans are both very important to the country as a whole, but also 

to American agriculture. A lot of detail, not a lot of time to ask 

questions. I will submit some later on, and I would hope to get a 

written response. We have both the tariff and the non-tariff barriers that we are dealing with in agriculture. I would like to quickly ask each of you which do you think are of greatest concern to 

you, the tariff or the non-tariff barriers, as it relates to agriculture? 

And I know there are two different sets of negotiations going on. 

Mr. STALLMAN. I think it depends on the market. That varies by 

market. 

Mr. COSTA. Right, and commodity. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes, and commodity. In general, we knew that 

when the Uruguay Round was completed, and there were reductions in tariffs, everyone suspected that the non-tariff barriers 

would rise to the forefront as being some of the strongest impediments to increased imports, and that has happened. I would suggest that the EU at this point, in terms of non-scientific-based 

trade barriers, is probably one of the main struggles that we face 

in agriculture—— 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And we are—— 

Mr. STALLMAN.—and as tariff—— 

Mr. COSTA. And we are stressing best use of science. They have 

made some progress on GMOs. Obviously, we are still having difficulty with poultry, as an example, but yet they use it on fresh 

fruit and vegetable products, which is inconsistent, I think. And 

then, of course, the naming rights which are—I love parmesan, but 

I mean whether parmesan is made in California or whether it is 

made in Italy, it is still parmesan. I mean that is like name branding pizza, seems to me. But these are issues we have to work for. 

Would some of the three of you like to make a comment? 

Dr. HILL. Well, I would say that removing the tariffs or lowering 

tariffs is probably key to getting into those markets, but the SPS 

issues are equally important, and those are what come back to 

haunt us later, and that is why the SPS chapter in TPP is so important because it will strengthen the enforcement. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Stallman said he thought they were getting good 

access in this process. How about yourself? In terms of—— 

Dr. HILL. Well, we have had—— 

Mr. COSTA.—negotiations. 

Dr. HILL. We have had very good input. We have worked closely 

with the—— 

Mr. COSTA. Go ahead. 

39 

Dr. HILL.—TPA—or the—— 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Kappelman, because of my time. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes. So I am going to say that, first of all, for 

us with TPP access, increased TRQs with Canada and Japan or 

lower tariff, and the non-trade barriers. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, and some of our trading partners like to play 

it both ways, as you know. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Right, yes. So we have to be ready for both. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Mr. Guenther? 

Mr. GUENTHER. As tariffs continue to come down on fresh fruits 

and vegetables, the non-tariff trade barriers are the ones that are 

probably most critical to success of equilibrium of trade for fresh 

fruits and vegetables. 

Mr. COSTA. Do any of you care to comment on the fact that some 

of the opposition, obviously, is coming from the area of Trade Promotion Authority, when you look at the history, I don’t know how 

we pass a major trade agreement unless we have some version of 

Trade Promotion Authority. What is your view on that? I mean do 

you think we could have these two trade agreements with, I don’t 

know, shall we say an open rule on the House floor, but I mean 

give me your thoughts. 

Mr. STALLMAN. I think it would be virtually impossible to complete and sign off on trade agreements without trade promotion. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Dr. HILL. I would agree. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes, also. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Dr. Hill, do you have any further points you would 

like to make on the issue of the geographical indicator issues? 

Dr. HILL. Of the what issues? 

Mr. COSTA. Geographical indicator issues like parmesan like I 

mentioned a moment ago 

Dr. HILL. No. 

Mr. COSTA. Okay. Mr. Guenther, beyond the various Federal programs that you mentioned in your testimony, obviously, specialty 

crops are not only big in California but elsewhere throughout the 

country. Are there other things that you think we should be looking at as it relates to these negotiations that not only for California 

but for other states that are engaged in your products, that we can 

pursue? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, making sure that we have increased access, you are talking about 300 different commodities grown here 

in the United States. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Mr. GUENTHER. And it is very difficult to balance out all that 

when you are talking about trade agreements, so that is why we 

think TPA is a very important component or tool for the Congress. 

But what I would say in terms of that is that we need to make sure 

that these trade barriers, I continue to go back to that, we have 

a fair, good, scientific and expeditious process when these come up 

that is consistent, because that is what they are getting when they 

come here to U.S. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. 

40 

My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. The 

question I am going to send to you is what happens if we don’t 

have a trade agreement, i.e., the status quo? I think we need to 

look at that as well. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Newhouse, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all four 

for being here this morning. 

I am from Washington State, one of the most trade-reliant states 

in the country, so this is a very important topic for me and my producers in Washington. 

I would first like to direct a question to Mr. Stallman, if I may. 

You all are well aware, those of us in the Pacific Northwest, all 

along the West Coast experienced significant damage due to the 

West Coast ports labor dispute, significant market shares have 

been lost by our farmers because we couldn’t get access to those 

markets. Could you perhaps discuss some opportunities that TPP 

might help us in reclaiming those markets? 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, I believe it would just on the general principle that we have more opportunity if we complete a successful 

TPP. With more opportunity, that should increase the trade flows 

into those markets, and should help us recapture some. I mean the 

fundamental issue with the transportation was there was just a 

delay and a shut off of the transportation of those products, to the 

extent the countries went to other sources. I still think that being 

as competitive as we are in the U.S., we can get them back. It is 

not a desirable situation, I might add, but if we work at it, we can 

get those back. We just don’t need any more shutdowns like that. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. To follow up on that, do you think programs 

such as MAP, Market Access Program, foreign market development 

under a TPP agreement, would those be useful tools? 

Mr. STALLMAN. I think they continue to be useful. I am not sure, 

depending on what the outcome of the TPP agreement would be in 

terms of opening up markets, what that would mean for those specific programs, but those specific programs have been very instrumental in improving our exports over the years. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Okay. Good. 

Mr. GUENTHER. I am sorry. I was going to just interject on this 

as well. When you look at the cost of $1.7 billion in lost agriculture 

sales exports out of this country, certainly a TPP is going to help 

bring back some of that business, because I know in the fruit and 

vegetable world, we are seeing losses in customer confidence, in the 

ability to export because of what happened since October and 

March. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Actually, Mr. Guenther, I was going to turn to 

you next: speaking about specialty crops, so that is a good segue. 

My state produces a lot of them; 300 different crops from the State 

of Washington, and fresh fruits, vegetables, apples, cherries, hops, 

you can name it, we can do it. Could you maybe discuss specifically 

some of the opportunities in some of those crops, what the trade 

agreement might present for growers? 

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, in the apples and cherries and those types 

of tree fruits, it has a great advantage and opportunity to have inVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
41 

creased access. They are already doing a fair amount of exports 

over there, but certainly this will be helpful in those areas as well. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Kappelman, welcome. We talked a lot about 

Japan and Canada, as it relates to dairy products, so if you were 

able to, what instructions would you give our trade delegation as 

it relates to getting milk products into these countries? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Well, actually, I sit on the Ag Policy Advisory 

Committee for the Administration, and my coaching all along has 

been don’t let dairy lag, because we have in the past. 

Nations are very protective of their milk supply. It is one of the 

staples that—— 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN.—nations want to protect, and I think that it is 

just that, for us as an industry that was protectionist, we found 

that opening the door a little bit was okay. The water was fine. 

And that would be my message to Canada if I were a negotiator, 

that you need to open the door a little bit because the water will 

be fine. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Okay. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Kuster, 5 minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all of 

you. This is an important issue facing all of us in the Congress, 

and I really appreciate your time. 

I want to direct my question to Mr. Kappelman. I appreciate the 

work that you do on behalf of the nation’s dairy farmers. New 

Hampshire and New England are home to many small family-run 

dairy operations right in my district that are vulnerable to price 

fluctuations. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes. 

Mr. KUSTER. And one concern that I have about the TPP is the 

impact on increased foreign dairy imports that we have been talking about this morning on these small dairy farmers. So could you 

please elaborate further on the challenges posed to our American 

dairy farmers from the New Zealand exports, and the you talked 

about the opportunities in dairy, Japan and Canada, and just how 

we might balance this in terms of what the impact could be and, 

in particular, we are talking about the TPP, I am trying to figure 

out the impact here in northern New England—— 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Right. 

Ms. KUSTER.—and so if you can give a sense on that, it would 

be very helpful. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Well, there are a couple of—thank you for the 

question, by the way. And there are some thing, because I represent, as a Land O’ Lakes Board member, I represent a lot of family-sized operations—— 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN.—family-sized from 30 cows to thousands of 

cows, and first of all, I want to thank Congress for passing a farm 

bill where we have a margin protection program, an insurance program that helps guarantee in times of—because what we are seeing now is that we have seen a precipitous drop in milk prices over 

the last 4 months, 40 percent drop. Now, they were at all-time 

42 

highs, and we are falling back into a low range, so we need a safety 

net, and we appreciate that. 

Opening the markets really has done a lot of things for us, and 

getting rid of our price support programs. We are creating new 

products in the industry that the world wants. We used to produce 

products that we could sell to the government if we had to. 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. So if everything went bad all at once, we could 

sell butter, we could sell powder, we could sell cheddar. Well, the 

world doesn’t buy 80 percent butter, they buy 82 percent fat butter. 

They don’t buy nonfat dry milk, they buy skimmed milk powder, 

and they don’t generally buy cheddar, although we did sell some 

cheddar to England, which is kind of interesting. 

Ms. KUSTER. Well done. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes. Not a lot but we got it done. But they sell 

a lot of Gouda and—— 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN.—other products. So by moving to a market-oriented system, we are now creating products that the world wants, 

and we are now trading some of those products. We are also developing a great artisan market for a lot of—just like the microbrews 

have opened up the brewing industry, same thing is happening in 

cheeses. 

Ms. KUSTER. We are seeing some great cheese in New Hampshire, and it is all small, small operators. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. And that is going to do a couple of things. First 

of all, I have friends in Wisconsin who produce farmstead cheese 

and are exporting it. But it also keeps some of those artisan 

cheeses from coming in from Europe. When you go to the dairy case 

now in the supermarket, you see a lot of American artisan cheeses. 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes. 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. You don’t have to just buy cheddar to mozzarella. We have a lot of opportunities now. 

Ms. KUSTER. That is great. That is very, very helpful. Thank you 

very much. 

And then this is just a general question for the group, one concern that I have heard from many of my constituents is that, in the 

past, the Administration has not always been aggressive enough in 

enforcing trade agreements, and I wouldn’t single out this Administration; I would say Administrations generally, from hardwood forest products, another big issue in my district, to aluminum 

extrusions. China and other countries have unfairly subsidized 

their exports, harming manufacturers in my state. What steps 

should be taken to better enforce our trade agreements and hold 

our trade partners accountable for violations so that we can better 

protect American agricultural producers and manufacturers? I just 

would open this up, maybe if you just want to go left to right, or 

my left to right, and that would be great if you could start. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, as I referenced earlier, the first thing we 

need to do in trade agreements is be sure that we have enforcement provisions that are transparent, that are timely, that you can 

move forward with to address these situations. 

We will have a lot of issues with China, and one of the moves 

to get them into the WTO was to make them subject to a lot of the 

43 

world trading rules that exist. We probably can always do better 

with enforcement, but it is not always easy when you file cases, it 

is not always easy to win cases and it takes a long time, but we 

continue to urge this Administration, and past Administrations, to 

do as much as they can to enforce trade agreements. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you. 

And my time is up so we won’t have the opportunity. Thank you 

very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panelists. 

I just wanted to address a few things about my home State of 

Illinois. And, Mr. Kappelman, do you see me behind Mr. Rouzer? 

Okay, perfect. He is a great block here. Illinois is my home state, 

and is the number one soybean producer in the nation, and we are 

the number two corn-producing state. Forty-four percent of the 

grain produced in Illinois is for exports. Trade is crucial to my district. My state ranks third in ag exports with $8.2 billion in exports. The Farm Progress Show, I will invite you all there, is going 

to be held September 1, 2 and 3, Decatur, Illinois. I would love to 

be able to have you there, along with the gentleman sitting behind 

me, whom I invited yesterday. 

Obviously, the issues you have been addressing are extremely 

important to my district, but also extremely important to this country. And several of you commented in your written statements 

about the multiplier effect that exports have, specifically, on rural 

communities. Can you highlight some of those examples? I will 

start with Mr. Guenther there since he has had to see me more so 

than the rest of you lately. 

Mr. GUENTHER. I think that when you look at how many jobs 

that we produce in terms of exports, two states that are very important, critical to fruits and vegetables, for instance, is California. 

They exported nearly $20 billion in 2013, which supports almost 

150,000 jobs. And then another top-producing state is Florida, 

where they export nearly $4.5 billion in 2013, which supports over 

33,000 jobs. So when you look at the export opportunities and what 

they mean to the agriculture community, the fruit and vegetable 

community in particular, I mean it is an important tool in the toolbox. And you look at, in terms of our risk management portfolio, 

and what things we have and don’t have based on farm bills and 

exports is a critical part of our business model. 

Mr. DAVIS. I mean it is important to remember what you are saying is you are not growing fruits and vegetables in urban areas. 

These are rural communities, and the ag sector is such an important and vital part of our rural communities that I serve. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Kappelman? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes. Multiplier effect for dairy is nothing short 

of miraculous. First of all, our growth in our industry will mostly 

be exported. We are growing our domestic consumption, but a lot 

of it is going overseas. And that multiplier effect of, basically, for 

economic activity, 2.75, so every dollar of export dairy, we are generating $2.75 of economic activity in the U.S., but bigger than that 

is the jobs. The amount of dairy exports we have grown over the 

44 

last 15 years, 140,000 incremental U.S. jobs. And we are not done 

growing yet. This industry can grow if we are given the tools to export. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Hill? 

Dr. HILL. I think the best way I can answer your question is to 

use my own farming operation as an example. I have a relatively 

small farm. We have 350 sows and we farm about 3,000 acres, but 

this operation has three full-time people and a couple of part-time 

people. I don’t write checks to any of those, my accountant does 

that, but I have enough Scotch in me that I still want to write the 

checks to everybody else, so I do that. And I write about 40 checks 

a month, and those checks go to the local hardware stores in a 

town of 5,000, a hardware store in a town of about 300 people, 

welding shop, seed, fertilizer, I do business with a local co-op. 

Those are the people that are out there that I do business with, 

and they are all in the rural area. And in order for us to maintain 

our market, we have to rely on exports, and that is why I keep 

going back to the fact that we need TPP, we are not going to get 

TPP if we don’t get TPA. We have to have TPA. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. 

Now, Mr. Stallman. 

Mr. STALLMAN. Just a couple of numbers. First, every additional $1 billion in ag exports generates 7,300 jobs. Every dollar in additional ag exports generates $1.27 worth of additional economic activity. I mean you have the processing, packaging, transportation 

sector. It boggles my mind that there are entities and groups of 

workers in this country who oppose trade agreements, when these 

same trade agreements are going to create jobs in transportation 

and for port workers. I don’t understand it, but it happens. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you all very much. It is a very important 

issue being addressed today. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Yoho, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for 

being here, and I look forward to moving forward with TPA and 

TPP as long as it is in the best interest of America. As we move 

forward, we are all for balance and fair trade, and being who I am, 

a Republican and a capitalist and all that, we just hope our deal 

is a little bit better for us. I am okay with that. But again, balance 

and fair trade, because as you brought up, Dr. Hill, everything you 

do, the jobs it creates, and as you brought up, every job or every 

time we export, it creates more jobs here in America. And as we 

move forward, what we saw in these multinational agreements, 

like with NAFTA and what happened on the Sugar Program and 

how it paid off, that we prevent those type of trade situations 

where it cost the American taxpayers $250 million, and that we 

have in place a way to recoup those losses, and that we can do 

that. And as we move forward with TPP, how do you see that 

working to where we have those negotiations, if somebody violates 

that, is there a way to resolve that without the WTO? Can there 

be an agreement within the trade agreement? We will start with 

you, Mr. Stallman. 

45 

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes. I mean it is anticipate that the TPP agreement would have specific dispute settlement processes, enforcement 

mechanisms under that agreement itself. The countries still fall 

under, in general, the rules of the WTO for those that are WTO 

members, but we should have a specific set of enforcement mechanisms for the TPP. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. Dr. Hill? 

Dr. HILL. Yes, I don’t think we can foresee every pitfall that occurs, but if it is a major problem, then we have to take it to the 

WTO. We have to enforce our rights, and some think that maybe 

we are not as aggressive enough there. Probably others think that 

maybe we are too aggressive. I am not sure, but that is what we 

have to do. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, again, when we negotiate these, and when there 

is a violation, we need to be forthright and forthcoming, and we 

need to do it quick. You do need to stand strong, because you are 

talking about, not just the trade imbalance, but you are also talking national security and what is best for America. And it is time 

we take a strong stand on that. 

Mr. Kappelman? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Yes, I agree totally with my fellow testifiers 

here. 

Mr. GUENTHER. I mean, yes—— 

Mr. YOHO. Same thing. 

Mr. GUENTHER.—I would agree with everything. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And then one of the things that we hear a lot 

about is the GMO and the restrictions put on American products, 

whether it is the GMO or the EPA, like the neonicotinoids that are 

used, and the restrictions put on our products. What are your feelings on that in this negotiation? Can we negotiate strongly on 

those to where we can put some kind of a pressure on the EU to 

accept those products with the research and development that have 

gone into those products, whether it is the neonicotinoids on pesticides, or the genetically-modified products that we produce that 

have gone through rigorous testing, and before they get released, 

they have already gone through that testing and they have years, 

and millions if not billions of dollars into that. How can we work 

with that negotiation where it is based on science and not on, I 

don’t know if this is the right word, but environmental McCarthyism maybe, to where they are attacking this because it is this 

‘‘GMO’’ with quotes around it. 

Dr. HILL. Well, in the case of TPP, a lot of that has occurred, and 

we have made significant progress. With TTIP, I am not as convinced that we will ever get the Europeans to back off the issues, 

as you pointed out, I don’t think they have negotiated in good faith 

to this point. That is why I am skeptical that TTIP will see the 

light of day, at least in the near future. TPP though can. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Anybody else have a different opinion or comment? 

Mr. STALLMAN. No, it is not an opinion, we just have to address 

those in the agreements themselves. I would concur that TTIP is 

going to be much more problematic in that regard. I get to meet 

with the negotiators from other countries, including the EU negotiators that come over and tell me all the things they are not going 

46 

to be able to do in this negotiation related to agriculture, and I 

point out to them, well, if there is not going to be anything 

changed, then why should we be supportive of it? 

Mr. YOHO. You know, and I like that because don’t tell me what 

you can’t do, tell me what we can do so we can do that. And I appreciate you being forthright on that, and I thank you for your 

time. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Rouzer for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think maybe perhaps 

I am the last Member. Maybe one more. Anyhow, here at the very 

end, I can assure you the record is going to show that all of you 

are in support of TPA and trade agreements in general. 

I want to focus my line of questions, and just a couple of them, 

to Dr. Hill. I have a very strong pork producing district in southeastern North Carolina. Obviously, pork is a critically important 

commodity to the State of North Carolina and to the country as a 

whole. And it occurs to me that we have had a significant amount 

of growth in exports probably since the late 1990s directly related 

to the opening of new markets, and I thought maybe it might be 

instructive for the Committee and others in the public to have a 

good sense of that history. Can you provide that? 

Dr. HILL. Yes. Well, up until about 1992, 1993, the United States 

was a net importer of pork. And as we developed these free trade 

agreements and started opening markets, we have successfully increased the amount of pork that we have exported every year but 

1, year over year. And last year volume was down slightly. Value 

was higher than 2013. But we export approximately 24 percent of 

all the muscle meat, and another roughly three percent of variety 

meats, which would include the offal and everything that I mentioned before, which that variety meat adds significantly to the 

value of the pig that eventually goes back to the producer. And as 

you said, North Carolina is, of course, they have the largest number of sows, and it is obviously very important. And now with 

Smithfield having that inroad into China, it is extremely important 

for them. And, China is one of those countries that we think eventually may want to join the TPP. 

Mr. ROUZER. We have been told that TPP will create significant 

business opportunities across the board for the pork industry, in 

particular for the State of North Carolina. Has there been any economic analysis in terms of jobs created? My district is one of those 

districts that has an above average unemployment rate, and the 

pork industry is critical to my district, so any new jobs we can create as it relates to this trade agreement, I would be most interested 

in. 

Dr. HILL. Yes, there absolutely has. Dr. Dermot Hayes, who is 

an ag economist at Iowa State University has done a study, and 

his predictions are that if we implement TPP, that it will create, 

just in the pork sector, another 10,000 full-time jobs. 

Mr. ROUZER. Any other comments that you would like to have in 

the last 1 minute and 49 seconds? This is your opportunity. 

Dr. HILL. We need TPA. 

Mr. ROUZER. I thought you were going to say that. 

47 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

G.T. Thompson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. More than happy to 

play cleanup here. Thank you for hosting this hearing. Gentlemen, 

great to see you. Thanks for being here. I appreciate what you do 

here in the hearing room and what you do back home. 

Dr. Hill, I wanted to follow up on what my colleague was talking 

about. Would you agree then that the hog industry, where it was, 

that the fact of responding to export demand and opportunity in 

the 1990’s really has stimulated growth in the hog industry, and 

quite frankly, created jobs? 

Dr. HILL. Yes, it absolutely has, and of course, it not only helps 

the pork industry but it helps the corn producers, it helps the soybean producers, and helping all. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that is a great point that is missed, because sometimes we think about trade, about just meeting the 

needs of current workers, current agricultural products, current 

farmers, ranchers, and the fact is that it seems like that these 

trade agreements have—really have stimulated future growth as 

well. 

You had referenced Dr. Hayes from the Iowa State University in 

your testimony, and you made reference to him with something 

else he had said in the previous line of questioning. The comments 

about the TPP, Dr. Hayes said comments that the TPP may be the 

most important commercial opportunity ever for U.S. pork producers. Can you elaborate on that? 

Dr. HILL. Well, the countries that are represented, the 12 countries represented in TPP, account for about 40 percent of the global 

market, and so it is going to open up a lot of opportunities. We exported about $2 billion of product to Japan. We don’t know exactly, 

it depends on what happens with the tariffs and everything, but we 

expect that that market can be significantly increased. We expect 

Vietnam and Australia also, and if China comes in eventually we 

look for China to be a huge market. China, of course, produces 

more pork than just about the rest of the world, but they have an 

increasing population and developing a middle-class that wants 

that protein. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Right. 

Now, Mr. Kappelman, keeping agriculture products moving now 

demands not only work by our trade agencies, such as USTR and 

FAS, but also regulators, given that often countries are looking for 

assurances about the safety of the products we are shipping. Now, 

for your business and the dairy business specifically, is this a process that works, and are our regulators sufficiently prioritizing 

trade issues? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. Thank you for the question. Because in dairy 

the rapid growth and trade is new, we are not staffed up. New, I 

say 10 years old, right. So we have had 10 years to figure this out, 

but we are not staffed up to meet the needs that we have to step 

up to certify our products to some of these countries. For instance, 

with Chile, we had the agreement made but then they said, ‘‘Okay, 

great, we need to get your plants certified.’’ And to the FDA, it is 

like, well, we are not staffed for that yet. So that whole FDA staffVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
48 

ing, and for us it is—a lot of it is plant certification that we are 

certified to export, but we are not there yet. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. And and I apologize, I was coming in late, 

but I heard this being asked to another Member of the panel, something similar, and Mr. Kappelman, I wanted to see if you can respond to this. Can you please discuss the importance to U.S. agriculture of preventing restrictions on the use of the generic food 

names? 

Mr. KAPPELMAN. That is an interesting concept. Of course, TTIP 

and Europe is front and center in that, and they think that a lot 

of their products they should have rights to those products. And 

unfortunately for them, a lot of our cheese makers came from Europe and we’re making the cheeses that they made three or four 

generations ago, and we have not only been manufacturing them, 

we have been promoting them, we have been marketing them, we 

have been building the market for those categories of cheese. So we 

have been building the global market, and now they want to take 

that back. Well, I don’t think Parma can make enough parmesan 

to feed the world. So we absolutely need to stand firm in those GIs. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Gentlemen, thank you for coming this morning and visiting with 

us, and getting a couple of things on the record: your clear support 

for TPA, and why that is necessary in order to get these broader 

agreements done. It is important that you have access to our negotiators, as well as negotiators on the other side of these deals so 

that everybody understand what is in the best interests of the entire agreement, and that you all reserve the right to support or not 

support the ultimate trade agreements based on the impact that 

you see on not only your particular industry, but also the broader 

impacts. I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize that today is National Agriculture Day, and so having this hearing on a topic so 

vital to the agricultural economy is serendipitous. I would like to 

say I planned months ago that we would have trade discussed on 

National Agriculture Day, especially given the level of exports, the 

jobs created, the wealth created, and the improvement in the U.S. 

economy that is associated with exporting things that we grow that 

other people want to eat or wear. 

So with that, under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials and supplemental written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

49 

SUBMITTED COMMENT BY HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM NEW MEXICO; ON BEHALF OF DAVID SANCHEZ, VICE PRESIDENT, NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STOCKMEN’S ASSOCIATION

The following comments were sent to our office by the Northern New Mexico 

Stockmen’s Association (NNMSA) on March 13, 2015. The attached comments detail 

NNMSA’s concerns regarding USDA’s proposed rule to allow livestock imports from 

Brazil. 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

9 CFR Part 94 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0017] 

RIN 0579–AD41 

Importation of Beef From a Region in Brazil 

[FR Doc. 2013–30464 Filed 12–18–13; 8:45 a.m.] 

Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association, represent approximately twenty 

thousand ranchers and farmers in New Mexico and Colorado. The majority of our 

producers are minorities, Hispanic and Native American (Indians). On behalf of our 

minority families are comments are the following: 

1. We do not support USDA in their proposed rule to allow the import of ‘‘Brazil 

Beef’’ into the United States. 

2. We are very concerned about the health risks this process would impose on 

our people and livestock industry. 

3. We believe this USDA Rule and proposed Brazil Beef import would damage 

the economy of our rural communities and our minority producers ability to 

sustain themselves. 

4. We are very disappointed that USDA and the current Administration would 

propose and support the Brazil Beef Import. 

5. We believe that the USDA proposed Rule and effort is a violation of our ‘‘Civil 

Rights’’ as minority livestock producers socially and economically. 

6. We are very concerned that USDA is not protecting our rights to fair trade 

for minority producers and the ability to better themselves. 

7. American Beef is Safe and that is what we demand for our families and foremost our children ‘‘in our communities and across the nation’’. 

Note: I’m the Vice President of NNMSA. 

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY ROBERT L. GUENTHER, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY, UNITED FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION

March 25, 2015 

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, 

Chairman, 

House Committee on Agriculture 

Washington, D.C.; 

Hon. COLLIN C. PETERSON, 

Ranking Minority Member, 

House Committee on Agriculture 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson: 

On behalf of United Fresh Produce Association, I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share United Fresh’s perspective on the importance 

of trade to agriculture during the Agriculture Committee hearing on March 18. In 

addition to my prepared statement, I would also like to submit these comments, 

which elaborate on the potential benefits of trade policies and agreements currently 

under discussion to the fruit and vegetable sector, for the hearing record. 

As Members of the Committee are well aware, there is ongoing debate within 

Congress and among interested stakeholders about granting Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to the President. This debate is happening at the same time that the 

United States is negotiating two key trade agreements. First, The Trans-Pacific 

Partnership (TPP) is intended to open up trade opportunities in the Asia-Pacific reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
50 

gion. Secondly, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would 

establish a free-trade area between the United States and the European Union 

(EU). The fruit and vegetable sector does have a significant interest in the passage 

and implementation of each of these proposals. 

As I mentioned in my written statement and oral testimony, export and import 

markets are both crucial to our members’ ability to succeed and meet year-round 

consumer demand for nutritious fresh fruits and vegetables. Focusing on exports, 

an indication of how fruit and vegetable exports could increase through free trade 

agreements (FTA) is shown through recent information from USDA. According to 

the Department, U.S. imports of horticultural products, including fresh fruits and 

vegetables, from current FTA partners were twice the level of exports to those same 

countries in 2009–2011. While our written testimony and Committee discussion focused a lot of attention on non-tariff trade barriers, another major impediment that 

has led to this imbalance is the high tariffs placed by TTP and TTIP countries on 

exports of fresh fruits and vegetables from the United States. 

For example, U.S. exports of fresh fruits to the TPP partners of Australia, Brunei, 

Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru Singapore and Vietnam face tariffs as high as 40 percent. Under the TPP, these tariffs would be cut, 

allowing for and increase to the current $3.1 billion in U.S. fresh fruits exports to 

the TPP region. Furthermore, exports of U.S. fresh vegetables to the TPP region 

face tariffs of up to 90 percent. Cuts to these tariffs as part of the TPP, would allow 

U.S. vegetable producers to grow the nearly $5 billion in fresh and processed vegetables currently exported to the TPP region. Similarly, the terms of TTIP seek to increase the $10 billion in agriculture commodities the United States currently exports to the European Union. United Fresh agrees with the Administration’s assertion that this number can and should be higher. 

For top fruit and vegetable producing states represented on the Committee, the 

potential for growth in exports under trade agreements currently being negotiated 

is significant. For example, agriculture exports from Michigan generated nearly $2.8 

billion in the most recent information from the Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development, and fruit accounts for nearly $200 million of that amount. 

Among the top export markets for the state of Michigan are the TPP counties of 

Canada, Mexico and Japan. Under TPP, tariffs for top Michigan crops such as apples and cherries will be cut, thereby opening up key foreign markets even further, 

helping the state of Michigan reach their stated goal for 2015 of doubling agriculture exports. Similarly, countries such as Canada, Mexico and Japan are among 

the top five export markets for the state of North Carolina, which counts apples 

among its top producing crops. It should also be noted that USDA estimates that 

agriculture exports support nearly 26,800 jobs and 28,200 jobs in Michigan and 

North Carolina, respectively, both on the farm and in related industries. 

During the hearing several Members raised the issue of non-tariff barriers to 

trade. While tariff levels are often an impediment to foreign market opportunities 

for fresh fruit and vegetable providers, non-tariff barriers can be just as detrimental. For fresh produce providers to be able to take full advantage of opportunities overseas, it essential that trade policies address non-tariff issues such as inputs, 

production, processing and mitigation. These measures can also include restrictive 

import and administrative procedures, bans on products from specific producing regions, and product and/or processing specifications, among others. Both TPP and 

TTIP seek the elimination of unwarranted, non-tariff measures that serve as trade 

barriers. United Fresh supports efforts to negotiate agreements that address nontariff barriers in a way that is science-based, ensures product safety and also promotes opportunities for America’s fresh produce producers. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Peterson, United Fresh believes that trade agreements such as TPP and TTIP hold great promise for not only 

ensuring continued opportunity and job growth here at home through imports but 

also to provide a level playing field for U.S. fruit and vegetable exports into key foreign markets. Furthermore, we would like to reiterate our support for the passage 

of Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate the expeditious approval of trade agreements. We believe that such actions will enhance the work done by America’s fruit 

and vegetable producers to make the most of export and import opportunities that 

meet consumer demand and promote business growth. United Fresh stands ready 

to assist you in promoting sound trade policies that benefit America’s agriculture 

sector. 

ROBERT GUENTHER, 

Senior Vice President, Public Policy, 


11406008.eps
51 

United Fresh Produce Association. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY PHILIP ELLIS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF

ASSOCIATION

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Hon. COLLIN C. PETERSON, 

Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, 

House Committee on Agriculture House Committee on Agriculture 

Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. 

Philip Ellis, President, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Submission for the Record 

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, 

on behalf of the U.S. beef industry, I thank you for holding this hearing on the importance of trade to U.S. agriculture. My name is Philip Ellis, and I am a cattleman 

from Chugwater, Wyoming. I am the President of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the nation’s oldest and largest trade association representing the 

U.S. beef industry and I am honored to share with you the pros and cons of trade 

that we have experienced as an industry over the years. 

Cattlemen and women support open markets, level playing fields, and sciencebased standards when it comes to international trade. We do not support trade 

based on politics and protectionism where governments, not consumers, determine 

demand. Simply put, when governments get in the business of picking winners and 

losers, everybody loses. The U.S. beef industry has been both the beneficiary and 

victim of trade policy and it is important that Congress and the White House get 

it right the first time. 

Beef demand around the world continues to grow at a strong and steady pace. In 

order to keep up with demand we rely on science and technology to assure our natural resources are efficiently used. We also rely on proper conservation practices to 

make sure our pasture and grazing lands remain healthy even in tough times like 

these. The judicious use of scientific interventions such as antibiotics, pest control, 

and growth promotants allow me and other producers to compete with beef producers across America and around the world for a growing consumer base that is 

hungry for the safe and delicious beef we produce. It is very important to me and 

many other ranching families that we do everything possible to ensure that the next 

generation will have the opportunity to continue providing high quality beef to consumers around the world. While government incentives for young and beginning 

producers may sound good in theory, the truth is nothing attracts workers like the 

promise of the almighty dollar. I believe that exports will help provide the real economic incentive needed to stem the tide of disappearing farmers and ranchers needed to continue providing safe and affordable food to a growing global consumer base. 

The elimination of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers is a top priority for the U.S. 

beef industry. I strongly encourage you to work with President Obama to craft current and future trade agreements based on free market, science-based principles 

that will resolve the limited market access we face due to tariff and non-tariff barriers. It is my hope that this information will highlight expanded trade opportunities as well as the barricades to trade that we continue to face in the U.S. beef industry. 

Overview of U.S. Beef Industry and Exports 

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. beef industry consists 

of nearly 915,000 cattle and calf operations with a national herd size of 89 million 

head of cattle, with 90 percent of cow herds consisting of less than 100 head (average is 44 cows per operation). In 2013, the U.S. beef industry generated $44 billion 

in farm gate receipts and the average American spent approximately $300 per capita on U.S. beef products. Without question, our domestic market is our largest consumer base and the focus of most of our marketing campaigns. Americans love beef, 

and we enjoy a dominant share of the domestic market place. At the same time, 

international consumers are often willing to pay premiums for cuts and variety 

meats such as tongue, livers, short ribs, skirts, and stomachs that are not as valuable in the U.S. market. 

The U.S. beef industry has traditionally exported 10 to 15 percent of our products 

and we expect that percentage to rise as more consumers are exposed to U.S. beef 

in other countries. In 2014, foreign consumers purchased 1.2 million metric tons of 

U.S. beef and beef products at a total of $7.1 billion. In addition to beef and veal, 

we also export hides and skins, tallow, live cattle, semen, embryos, and even renVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:43 Jun 05, 2015 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-05\93964.TXT BRIAN
52 

dered cattle. If there’s a market demand for any part of the animal we do our best 

to meet it. According to CattleFax, a global leader in beef industry research, analysis, and information, exports accounted for $350 per head of fed cattle in 2014. 

Beef and beef products are the largest segment of our export portfolio. According 

to the U.S. Meat Export Federation, our top five export markets in 2013 were: 

Japan ($1.58 billion, 241,129 metric tons), Mexico ($1.17 billion, 242,566 metric 

tons), Hong Kong ($1.15 billion, 154,420 metric tons), Canada ($1.03 billion, 137,532 

metric tons), and Korea ($847 million, 117,567 metric tons). 

U.S. Beef Industries Export Values 

Livestock Marketing Information Center I–N–70, 02/25/15. 

Data Source: USDA–FAS, Compiled & Analysis by LMIC. 

Success Stories for U.S. Beef Trade 

Quite possibly one of the greatest success stories for the U.S. beef industry has 

been the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 1993, the pre-NAFTA 

level of U.S. beef exports to Mexico were 39,000 tons valued at $116 million. As a 

result of NAFTA, Mexico eliminated its 15 percent tariff on live cattle slaughter, the 

20 percent tariff on chilled beef and the 25 percent tariff on frozen beef. Fast forward to 2014—Mexico was our second largest export market, valued at over $1 billion. With the announcement that Mexico lifted the 30 month age-based restriction 

on U.S. beef products, we anticipate further growth in our exports to Mexico. Meanwhile, Canada has traditionally been our largest export market for U.S. beef, but 

finished fourth overall with a remarkable $1.03 billion in sales. Having two large 

export markets at our borders has greatly benefited the U.S. beef industry. 

Not only do we trade beef with Mexico and Canada, the live cattle trade is also 

a very lucrative business for all three nations. In 2014, we imported over one million 

head of cattle from Canada and over one million head of cattle from Mexico. Mexican-born and Canadian-born cattle are a critical component to the success of the 

U.S. beef industry, something on which U.S. cattlemen depend in order to supplement our herd shortage. 

Likewise, our trade agreements with other countries in the western hemisphere 

have proven to be very successful for the U.S. beef industry. After 10 years under 

the terms of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR–CAFTA) where we 

are experiencing the benefits of elimination of 15–40% tariffs over 15 years and the 

strengthening of SPS measures. 

Of course, we are very excited to see the growth and opportunities that have been 

created with the implementation of the free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, 

and Panama. Korea is a top five market for U.S. beef exports and the 15 year phase 

out and elimination of the 40 percent tariff on U.S. beef allows us to sell more U.S. 

beef to more Korean consumers. We currently enjoy an eight percent tariff rate advantage over Australia and Canada because Congress implemented our agreement 

before Australia and Canada. In recent years critics questioned whether the Korea 

FTA was beneficial to the beef industry because sales were not as high as the year 

before the FTA was implemented. One important fact they do not take into account 


11406009.eps
53 

is that prior to the implementation of the FTA, Korea was suffering from a massive 

shortage in their domestic livestock production due to animal health issues that led 

to a spike in beef imports. Domestic production in Korea has been recovering at a 

rapid pace, and even in spite of that, 2014 was a record year for beef sales in Korea 

at $874 million. 

While elimination of Korea’s massive 40 percent tariff is important, equally as important are the strong sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) in the Korea 

FTA. The Korea FTA’s SPS agreement is considered the gold standard of SPS agreements and is something we want reflected in all future agreements. Similarly, the 

SPS agreements in the Colombia and Panama FTAs are also very strong. 

One market that has been beneficial for U.S. beef exports is Hong Kong. The 

cause of this increase in sales has not had as much to do with the removal of tariff 

barriers as the removal of a non-science based, age-based restriction on U.S. beef. 

In May 2013, the U.S. was designated as ‘‘negligible risk status’’ for bovine 

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) by the World Organization for Animal Health 

(OIE). Under a previous agreement Hong Kong agreed to grant full market access 

(no more restriction on age) for U.S. beef. In 2008, Hong Kong purchased $43 million in U.S. beef. In 2014, that number grew to $1.15 billion. 

Without question, one of the greatest developments for the U.S. beef industry was 

Japan lifting their age-based restriction on U.S. beef from 20 months to 30 months 

on February 1, 2013. Prior to that time Japanese protocol limited imports of beef 

from the U.S. to cattle slaughtered before they reached 21 months of age. The removal of that arbitrary trade barrier caused the sale of U.S. beef to climb from $4 

million in 2004, to $1.6 billion in 2014. Japanese consumers want U.S. beef, and 

the removal of the age-based restriction will further encourage our sales to grow. 

Hindrances to U.S. Beef Trade 

Unfortunately we continue to face many unnecessary barriers from tariffs, tariff 

rate quotas, and non-science based non-tariff barriers. Many of these restrictions 

have been the result of government reaction to cases of BSE. 

China 

China’s market remains closed to U.S. beef since the 2003 discovery of a Canadian-born cow infected with BSE in the U.S. Since 2003, China has continuously 

used non-science based standards to ban imports of U.S. beef, a product that is recognized internationally as a safe product. Arbitrary guidelines not based on science 

have resulted in lost profits for U.S. beef exports across the globe. According to 

CattleFax, the U.S. beef industry lost nearly $22 billion in potential sales through 

2010 due to BSE bans and restrictions around the world. 

The U.S. beef industry has taken great strides to open markets and promote U.S. 

beef in Asia. As the middle-class grows throughout Asia, consumers are switching 

to a protein-based diet. There are tremendous opportunities for beef, pork, and poultry in China, a place with a high population and a growing demand for protein. It 

has been estimated that U.S. beef sales in China could exceed $300 million annually 

if given access. 

U.S. beef isn’t the only industry to suffer from these non-science based trade restrictions. On a larger scale, the elimination of China’s tariffs and other trade restrictions could lead to an additional $3.9 to $5.2 billion in U.S. agricultural exports 

to China, according to a study by U.S. International Trade Commission. 

One of the greatest hindrances for the U.S. beef industry has been China’s reluctance to embrace internationally recognized science-based standards for beef such 

as those standards recommended by the World Organization for Animal Health 

(OIE) and the Codex Alimentarius (Codex). 

According to a March 2011 report by the United States International Trade Commission, U.S. and Chinese officials have been unable to reach an agreement on requirements for trade in a variety of beef products, owing to China’s regulations related to BSE. In June 2006, China agreed to allow imports of boneless U.S. beef 

from cattle less than 30 months of age. However, approval was subject to a number 

of stipulations, many unrelated to BSE risk, and an agreement has not been 

reached. 

On May 29, 2013, the OIE upgraded the United States’ designation for BSE from 

controlled-risk to negligible risk for BSE. The negligible BSE risk distinction applies 

to cattle and commodities from countries or zones that pose a negligible risk of 

transmitting the BSE agent as demonstrated by: (1) a risk assessment; (2) the appropriate level of BSE surveillance; (3) one of the following: no BSE cases, only imported BSE cases or indigenous BSE cases born no more recently than 11 years; (4) 

an existing education and reporting program; and (5) a feed ban that has been in 

54 

place for at least 8 years if an indigenous or imported case or other risk factors 

exist. 

Negotiators were able to reach agreement on trade in several other bovine products that present a low risk of BSE (bovine semen and embryos), but were unable 

to reach an agreement on trade in beef tallow. Today, in order to export U.S. beef 

to China the product must meet all 22 requirements set by the Chinese government. 

It is unfortunate that China will import beef from other countries that have negligible risk status, such as Australia and New Zealand, and even from countries 

such as Canada that have controlled-risk status, a lesser status in the OIE scale 

of designations, but not from the U.S. NCBA encourages U.S. and Chinese negotiators to develop a beef protocol based on sound science and commercial feasibility 

instead of political interests. 

Another area of concern is China’s opposition to the proper use of internationallyapproved technologies, particularly beta agonists such as ractopamine. Beta agonists 

are fed to cattle (steers and market heifers) in feedlots during the last 28 to 42 days 

of the finishing period to safely increase carcass gain, feed efficiency and carcass 

leanness while maintaining beef’s natural taste, tenderness and juiciness. The 

Codex Commission, the international food standards-setting body recognized in the 

WTO–SPS Agreement, has established a set of Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) 

widely accepted in international trade. On July 5, 2012, Codex adopted standards 

for maximum residue levels for ractopamine. The establishment of international 

standards for veterinary drugs like ractopamine is important since many countries 

rely on science based food standards to ensure that the food they are importing is 

safe. U.S. agricultural exporters and consumers worldwide benefit from the adoption 

of international standards for food safety. Unfortunately, China continues to find 

reasons to delay approval of technologies like ractopamine, instead of incorporating 

into their protocol the proven scientific standards of the international community. 

Other countries have changed their beef protocols in the wake of the Codex approval. NCBA encourages China to do the same. As the global population continues 

to grow, and as a result a growth in the demand for protein, food production must 

adapt through the use of safe technological advances that rely on fewer available 

natural resources. 

Russia 

Prior to 2013, Russia was the fifth largest market for U.S. beef exports with Russian consumers purchasing more than $300 million of U.S. beef in 2012. Unfortunately, at the end of 2012 Russia closed its doors to beef from the United States, 

Canada, Mexico, and Brazil due to non-science based concerns over production technologies used in each of those countries. While the impact of unnecessarily closing 

a $300 million market to U.S. beef has impacted our industry, this unfortunate 

move by the Russian government did not come as a surprise. 

On August 22, 2012, Russia officially joined the WTO. As part of Russia’s accession agreement with the U.S., Russia agreed to expand market access for U.S. beef 

to 60,000 metric tons (frozen beef) and an unlimited supply of High Quality beef 

at a 15 percent tariff rate. Even though the U.S. beef industry raised concerns with 

our government over Russia’s history of implementing market-disrupting nonscience based trade barriers, the increase in available quota for U.S. beef was 

viewed as a promising move for U.S. beef producers and Russian consumers who 

continually purchased more U.S. beef year after year (2010: $152 million in annual 

sales/57,453 metric tons; 2011: $256 million in annual sales/72,797 metric tons; 

2012: $307 million in annual sales/80,408 metric tons). 

Prior to Russia joining the WTO, the U.S. beef industry had not been a target 

for Russia’s non-science-based market closures suffered by other U.S. meat industries like pork and poultry. Russian consumers had not raised concerns about the 

safety of U.S. beef, nor had the Russian government. Even after Russia voted in opposition of the Codex Alimentarius’ (Codex) establishment of a maximum residue 

level (MRL) for ractopamine, Russia continued to import record amounts of U.S. 

beef through 2012. It was not until the end of 2012, that Russia announced it would 

no longer accept beef and pork that was not certified as ‘‘ractopamine-free’’. Unfortunately, Russia has yet to provide any science-based standards to justify this action 

and has provided little direction to the U.S. beef industry on how to meet their demands for ractopamine-free beef. 

Unfortunately, Russia continues to find reasons to delay approval of technologies 

like ractopamine instead of incorporating into their protocol the proven scientific 

standards of the international community. Other countries have changed their beef 

protocols in the wake of the Codex establishment of a MRL for ractopamine and 

NCBA encourages Russia to do the same. 

55 

Hindrances to U.S. Beef Trade Caused By U.S. Policy 

Unfortunately, there are some policies enacted that have managed to restrict the 

U.S. beef producer’s ability to sell beef in some countries. 

One situation that is still fresh on our memories is the trade retaliation that resulted from the U.S. Government failing to enact a cross-border trucking program 

with Mexico. While the U.S. may have been the first country to implement carousel 

retaliation schemes, other countries have picked up on the idea and are becoming 

experts at innovating its implementation. Fortunately U.S. beef was not on the first 

retaliation list for Mexico during the trucking dispute, but we are very confident 

that we will be on the top of the list for both Mexico and Canada following the decision from the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the U.S. mandatory 

Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) program. 

The WTO has continuously ruled that the U.S. COOL program violates international trade laws and if the U.S. does not change its law Canada and Mexico will 

most likely be authorized to sue for relief against the U.S., most likely in the form 

of retaliatory tariffs. If the WTO rules against the U.S., then Mexico and Canada 

will start the process toward retaliation. Rest assured, U.S. beef and cattle will be 

at the top of the list for retaliatory tariffs, followed by a long list of other agricultural and manufactured goods. The only way to resolve this potential trade war is 

to repeal COOL and allow the beef industry to market our product competitively. 

NCBA Supports Science-Based and Market-Driven Trade Opportunities 

Trans-Pacific Partnership 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an ambitious, 21st-Century trade agreement that includes Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, 

Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. NCBA believes that the TPP has the potential to open a number of export opportunities for 

U.S. beef and expand our presence in Asia. NCBA has been strong supporter of our 

government’s efforts to push for tariff elimination and strong science-based standards among all TPP nations for as long as the U.S. has been part of TPP. We encourage our negotiators to remain vigilant and to continue to push the Japanese on 

beef access because the U.S. beef industry cannot afford to be handed a deal that 

resembles anything close to the terms given to the Australians. Under the JapanAustralia agreement, Japan will reduce its massive 38.5 percent tariff on frozen beef 

to 19.5 percent over 18 years, and reduce the tariff on chilled beef from 38.5 to 23.5 

percent over 15 years. 

We have always supported our government and we appreciate the hard work of 

our negotiators, but NCBA’s ultimate support for the TPP hinges on the terms of 

the deal. Make no mistake; the U.S. has been accused of taking similar action on 

sensitive products. And we know exactly what happens in this situation, beef always 

gets the short end of the stick. 

NCBA Supports Renewal of Trade Promotion Authority 

NCBA supports the timely renewal of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Every 

United States President from Gerald Ford to George W. Bush has been able to negotiate under TPA, and this expired policy is long overdue for renewal. Opponents of 

free trade are throwing everything they can in front of TPA efforts in an attempt 

to derail future trade agreements from being finalized. Some of these groups have 

made claims that previous trade agreements are a prime example of why future 

trade agreements should not be allowed. They have used unsubstantiated arguments to support their false claims and have tried to convince the public that previous trade agreements are not delivering on promises previously made. To those 

critics I would like to point out that trade agreements do not guarantee success, but 

they do remove barriers to trade and allow us to compete fairly for consumers overseas. For example, trade agreements negotiated under TPA achieved the following: 

• Korea-U.S. FTA: Elimination of 40% tariff over 15 years; inclusion of strong 

SPS* measures. 

• Colombia-U.S. FTA: Elimination of 80% tariff over 15 years; inclusion of strong 

SPS* measures. 

• Panama-U.S. FTA: Elimination of 30% tariff over 15 years; inclusion of strong 

SPS* measures. 

• DR–CAFTA–U.S. FTA: Elimination of 15–40% tariffs over 15 years; inclusion 

of strong SPS* measures. 

• Chile-U.S. FTA: Elimination of price-band system; recognition of U.S. beef 

standards. 

56 

• Peru Trade Promotion Agreement: Re-opened market to U.S. beef, eliminated 

25% tariff; inclusion of strong SPS* measures. 

Meanwhile, some elected officials have criticized TPA as granting additional constitutional powers to the President or claiming that supporting TPA is essentially 

the same as abandoning their Congressional responsibilities. In fact, TPA is legislation that ensures our government is working together to finalize trade agreements 

that provide greater market access for U.S. goods and services. TPA affirms Congressional authority by establishing negotiation objectives and by requiring the 

President to consult with Congress during negotiations with the guarantee that 

Congress can either approve or reject the final deal, but not amend it. 

But why is TPA so important for trade? The U.S. import market is one of the 

most open markets in the world. The only way to level the playing field for U.S. 

exports is to negotiate increased market access and tariff elimination/reduction for 

our exports via trade agreements. TPA ensures that the U.S. has the credibility to 

conclude the best deal possible at the negotiating table. 

We need Congress to act immediately to renew TPA so that our negotiators and 

our trading partners can finalize good trade deals in good faith. And for those who 

want to delay action on TPA until there is a new President in the White House be 

sure to keep in mind that for every day that passes, our competitors are finalizing 

trade agreements and taking market share away from Americans. 

Conclusion 

With 96 percent of the world’s consumers living outside of the U.S., access to foreign markets for our beef and beef products is significantly important for our industry to grow. Exports are vitally important for the future success of U.S. beef producers and rural America. Future growth of the U.S. economy depends upon our 

ability to produce and sell products competitively in a global marketplace. Economic 

globalization is not simply a matter of ideological or political preference; it is a fundamental reality that will determine whether America remains an economic superpower or becomes a secondary economic force. 

We support President Obama’s effort to double U.S. exports and create jobs in 

rural America. On behalf of NCBA and many other stakeholders of the U.S. beef 

industry, I thank you for your continued efforts to open and expand market access 

for U.S. beef producers. 

Sincerely, 

PHILIP ELLIS

President, NCBA 

Æ