nation, they default on that loan, china comes in and creates a tkefbg spiral on it. then they end up getting mineral resources and other resources that the country has taking on the loan at a very big discount. we have a threat of them continuing to ask for something every time they go to a nation. we ask for nothing. mr. johnson: thank you very much. i wish i had another five minutes but my time is running low, mr. chairman. and i would yield. mr. thompson: the gentleman yields back. the committee stands in recess to immediately -- until immediately after casting the third vote in this series. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] %8

mr. thompson: my appreciation. i'm tha*pgful for -- thankful thankful for your tolerance with the recess we did for the three-vote series. now pleased recognize the gentlelady from connecticut congresswoman hayes, for five minutes. mrs. hayes: thank you, mr. chairman. over the past few decades, china has significantly brought in its economic and political influence, especially in the agricultural sector.

the belt and road initiative massive china-led infrastructure project that aims to stretch around the globe. the project has expanded to africa oceaniana and latin america in the decades since its inception. according to the american enterprise institute, china global investment tracker they've invested nearly $77 billion in foreign agricultural products between 2013 and 2023. currently, 783 million people across the globe are facing reason toic hunger and growing more and more dependent on the agricultural structures developed by china. during your time with united nations agencies, you saw firsthand the importance of global food security. why is it important for the united states, rather that than china, to leads the world in solving global food security? mr. tom: when i look at participation -- first of all, i served the state department, the united states -- the president

of the united states. i didn't work for thersight over them. to answer your question i understand why the chinese are doing what they want to do. to improve their food security. i mean, i think they've been through the last century a couple of famines that have affected and we've seen where famines can turn governments around. french revolution and there's one happening in russia, obviously. and many others. but the reality is they are going to continue to invest and they want to make sure that they capture as much u.s. innovation to accomplish their goals as they can. and they don't want to pay for it. mrs. hayes: so what are some best practices that we can employ to build trusting relationships with other countrys? mr. tom: i think what we've got to do is, first of all, i believe we need to diversify our trading partners. that's one thing we need to do. best practices would also include making sure that we have

the foreign ag service, the usda representing all of our agriculture commodities and products, travel the world and make sure we continue to increase exports of our products here. mrs. hayes: thank you. our leadership at the international level depends on our relationships with our allies and those who look to us for guidance. i've long been a supporter for programs like food for progress. if these programs and collaborations with developing countries were underfunded can we expect china to step into that role? mr. tom: no, they will not. if you look at funding from china and food security issues, on one hand they'll tell you they're the second largest economy in the world. on the other hand, they'll say we're a developing economy, we can't contribute to solving world hunger. the u.s. plays anywhere from 40% to 06% of the world foo which like i said over a

year ago was around $14 billion. if we can do anything, we need to create resilience and capacity in food systems, but it needs to be driven by the private sector. not the u.n. organizations. the private sector holds the i.p., the knowledge, the capacity financially and the ability to improve food systems and that's where we really need to support growth in food systems. mrs. hayes: thank you. s ilanded to the last panel -- i listened to the last panel and this panel as well and i think one thing is clear. we have to discuss food policy as part of any national security conversation. anyone who has watched this committee for more than 30 seconds knows that hunger, food security feeding program, those are issues that are near and dear to me and they're not just about charitable responses. it liter is national security. so i thank you all for being here today. mr. chair, i yield back. mr. thompson: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. miller, for five minutes.

mrs. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. i'm so glad to see that this topic is getting the attention that it deserves. so, last year at the beginning of congress, the first bill i introduced was to ban china and our adversaries from purchasing u.s. farmland. i'm extremely concerned about the loss of production agriculture in the united states. we are losing fertile farmland to solar panels because of the green bad deal and our adversaries are buying up our farm ground. as a farmer myself, it's extremely important to me that we're preserving the family farm for the next generation and not letting china buy our farmland and -- or covering it with solar panels. ambassador tom i know you're concerned with china's growing influence in africa, especially in their agriculture industry. can you talk more about how you see this as a threat to the security?

mr. tom: yeah. i see it as a threat in a number of ways. to restrict as much chinese ownership of our land as we can. we need to make sure that there's many ways that they can have the ownership of this land through different structures that hides the identity of who actually is involved in that process. we need to do a better job. there i'm not sure usda has the resources today, maybe they do to accomplish that. to your point, we've lost 150 million acres of farmland in the united states since the early 1980's. 150 million. today we're losing at the rate of almost 1800 acres an hour. it's accelerated during the stimulus bills that came out. but i also look at this. i look at the -- how much land the federal government has control of as well. so we need to make sure that the american farmers still have access to the land that we need to have to produce the food, fiber and energy, not only for the united states, but for the

world. mrs. miller: absolutely. i want to say that i'm here to represent food production and to defend our ability to feed ourselves. do you think this poses a similar threat to our energy sector as china's actions in africa also allows them to monopolize critical mineral production? mr. tom: i've seen it all across africa. a year ago i was in the sure dan and we saw -- i was in the sudan, and we saw the wagner group, we saw china. i've traveled extensively throughout africa and that theme continued everywhere i went. the conditions people were working in, the mining of materials, i think they control like 65%, 07% of those critical minerals. and of course tack them back to china, process them and then sell them to the united states as solar panels. we just lost 600 acres this past win the torso lar panels. it has to stop. we're sinking as much carbon as

those solar panels are probably going to produce in terms of changing the climate. so we need to pay attention. mrs. miller: i also have a bill to prohibit solar panels from going on class a and class b farm ground. do you think that the left's push for quote, more green energy is making us more reliant on china since we need critical minerals to produce solar panels? mr. tom: there's no question. that's all part of it. the thing is, i think what we need to look at is, what are the costs to implement these policies, to bring green energy to the united states? you know, it comes at a large cost to obviously construct solar panel fields, wind turbines, all these different things. i'm all about saving the environment. i'm all about doing what we can to protect the world we live in today. but the reality is, not only are we going to pay through this through incentives to put these solar farms in, but at the same time that energy is going to be much more expensive. whether it's energy or food,

these climate initiatives are going to be inflationary to food costs and energy costs and it will affect those that can least afford it the most. mrs. miller: and everything goes back to energy. china's human rights record is terrible. we don't need to do things to strengthen them and we all know that they're opening a coal-fired plant every week while we're being driven to these policies that make energy unaffordable and unreliable and then not only that, taking our productive farm ground out of production. this is a critical national security issue and we cannot let china take control of our farm ground for our energy sector. thank you so much. mr. thompson: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. now pleased to recognize dr. adams for five minutes. ms. adams: thank you, chairman thompson and also to ranking member, to our witnesses, thank you very much. from both panels, actually. we had an earlier panel.

i do want to get clear on one worry -- thing. because i worry that we're getting our timelines wrong. the tenor of today's testimonies seem to suggest that china's entry into the u.s. farmland market was the beginning of agricultural consolidation and small farm, he collusion -- exclusion. however, decades of corporate concentration in the food system are missing from the conversation. a brittle bottleneck the norm, even before china came into the picture. for example mr. tom mentioned that the w meat packer, a brazilian company and the cyberattack it faced which was done by russia by the way, and it halted slaughterhouse activity here with severe ramifications across the supply chain. a more diverse supply chain would be much less vulnerable to such attacks. we've also heard a lot today about smithfield's takeover by

china, as if it wasn't already the world's largest pork producer when it was an american company. this is tphaorb what governor -- this is in addition to what governor noem raised earlier about chemical fertilizer and processing companies being brought up -- bought up. and mr. gallagher mentioned china's owning of a company that's creating an untenable dependency. if it's interesting -- it's interesting to me that it is a burdensome regulatory environment that mr. tom identifies as a source o china's attempts to build its dominance. when 100 years of poorly enforced anti-trust laws or a lack of regulation has concentrated our food systems so much that it has now become its most vulnerable to foreign threats. so, having said that, my first question for the panel, you can briefly respond, is, do you believe that market concentration or vertical

integration is a threat to national security? each of you. mr. tom: i'll start out, i guess. you know, i'm a family farmer. i'm seventh generation. our family has been in this country 10 generations, we've been farmers ever since. we've grown, we've been successful we've invested, we've taken risk. sometimes not always the best risk. we have failed. but at the end of the day, we're a family farm. are we larger? yes. but it's because we took those risks and we were successful. we also worked hard. so yes consolidation has taken place but there's plenty of room for all size farmers in the united states. i started with nothing. i came into the family farm and i grew my own acres, i bought my own equipment. i took the risk. i took out bank loans. i took out a farm service agency loan to buy my first farm. but we've grown over type. farming requires a lot of capital and it requires a lot of

people but it also requires a lot of investment and education to make sure you're a viable enterprise. ms. adams: thank you. mr. daly: thank you for the question. it's very complex and complicated and i agree with mr. tom that there's going to be all sizes of farms and relatively speaking when it comes to consolidation, you know there will probably be winners and losers to that. rural america, i expect it's a little bit different than it is in north dakota than it is in indiana, of course. but to the extent that consolidation leads to further loss of certain size farms in different parts of the country that can be something that would cause some concern. but i think you're right. mr. gackle: our ag system is going to require all sizes in all places, more than likely. ms. adams: thank you. would you like to comment sir? mr. daly: i agree with the

gentleman. both being farmers, they know on the ground the importance of this issue that you raise. and how it should be balanced and approached. ms. adams: let me move on real quickly. the valid concerns about speculative landownership driving up farmland prices in a way that it's already for bidding people in this country who want to own land or to farm from doing so. mainly black, indigenous and other farmers of color, and new and beginning farmers. so i have a justice for black farmers act that would require the secretary of agriculture to conduct annual reporting about corporate land investment and ownership. so would you say that we have comprehensive tracking of landownership in the u.s.? anybody can answer this. we have two seconds. >> are we tracking landownership in the united states? yes. in terms of department of agriculture has a process of tracking sort of farmland

acquisitions and ownership and obviously the committee's leadership was instructed to see if they're doing it right and there's improvements that have to be made. ms. adams: thank you very much. i'm out of time, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. thompson: the gentlelady's time has expired. i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee mr. rose, for five minutes. mr. rose: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to ranking member scott and thank you to our witnesses for your time and indulgence with our schedule today. i'll go ahead and dive right in. ranking member's written testimony stated that agricultural technology is a prime target of intellectual property theft because american technology and farming are the best and most productive in the world. ambassador tom, can you elaborate on specific examples that you're awar of -- aware of where recent -- of recent intellectual property theft attempts or successes by china in the agricultural sector? mr. tom: certainly. i think in the world we live in today, whether it's your

banking, whether it's your amazon account or whatever it may be, we've constantly got to be altering and modifying and improving our systems to protect our data. and our intellectual property. when i look at -- i'll give you an example. as i stated in my opening testimony. we've had seeds stolen. they will continue to find out new ways to do it. i think we need to get more creative in trying to understand how they're doing th-fpt but when i look at what -- doing this. but when i look at what we're doing on farms today, what we do to increase productivity, make sure we lessen our carbon footprint, use less fuel, fertilizer and seed, everything we need to do, those are pry prytary proprietary algorithms. with china's investment now in i.p., in the seeds, and their access to fertilizer chemistry they're going to continue to try. but they've got to get -- they want to get hold of our i.p. of how we produce it on our farm to improve productivityity. one example, i'll give you this.

when i first arrived in rome, i went to a diplomatic event. the chinese ambassador came up to me with a piece of paper and say, do you recognize these fields? i said, yes. i sure do. those are my fields back in indiana. he goes, i just wanted to ask. that was a shot across the bow. that really woke me up to understand that they have access to more than we think. looking ahead, what long-term investments can the u.s. policies can we adopt to maintain our edge in agricultural technology and mitigate the threat of chinese dominance in this critical sector of the economy? it's like i said in my one comment earlier. china's spending about $10.2 billion a year in research and development. today we leave most of that up to the private sector. which is good. but i think we need to see more collaboration between the university system and extension and we need to invest more in research and development between

private and public and our universities, our land grants to make sure we replain competitive. if we -- remain competitive. if we don't, we're going to see increased productivity in china that's going to supplant our markets around the world. mr. rose: thank you. shift gears. mr. daly in your written testimony, you mention had china restricts nearly all foreign investment into its agricultural sector, unless companies incorporate in and share data with china. can you elaborate on how this lack of reciprocity and market access disadvantages american agricultural companies and how a policy of reciprocity could help level the playing field? mr. daly: thank you congressman, for that question. very important. yes. i think we have to really consider a policy of reciprocity in terms of what actions china does, in terms of u.s. investments in its country, and what we should do on the counter side on this side of the aisle.

and i think it's smart engagement with china. to be honestly be able to engage with them and say, look, you have these policies that restrict our investors and our capabilities, so we're just putting those measures in place on this side. so i think it's a smart policy that should pervade the agricultural space as well. mr. rose: sure. and finally mr. gacky, in the time remaining obviously you recognize that the target is kind of squarely on soybean producers in this country, in terms of being kind of caught between the motions of what we do and what china does. and we talked before we restarted. as the soybean industry thinks in the u.s., as you think about the challenges from china, if you had one takeaway for us today about what we need to be think being, what would that be? mr. gackle: to choose just one

in 15 seconds. i think the important thing to recognize and i mentioned it in my oral comments and in conversations here today, but we are working hard to diversify and find new markets. we as u.s. soy. and that work will continue on. but it takes time, it takes years, it takes decades to build those new relationships and the scale of china being what it is, and just the demand there for u.s. soy and for -- i shouldn't say -- but *r for soy in general, if they don't get it from us, they'll get it from somewhere else. mr. rose: thank you. mr. thompson: the gentleman's time has expired. now recognize the gentlelady from virginia, ms. spanberger, for five minutes. ms. spanberger: thank you. i am a former c.i.a. case officer and as such i do understand the threats posed by the chinese communist parties a aggressive influence campaigns as well as its attempts to target u.s. national security interests through seemingly innocuous transactions. and as the only virginian on the

agriculture committee, i am cometted to protecting our -- committed to protecting our carbon wealth, farms and farm families from our adversaries. as you all well know, the chinese communist party's attempt to control american farmland go beyond mere investment. they represent a strategic maneuver to gain leverage over critical aspects of our economy and food production and this control can lead to compromised agricultural practices exploitation of natural resources, and unfair competition against american farmers. that's why i was proud to lead the bipartisan protecting america's agricultural land from foreign harm act. the bill recognizes the threats posed not just by the chinese communist party but also by russia, iran and north korea. buying up american farmland can be a tool for eroding our nation's food security, economic security and national security and we need to take steps to push back against these efforts. if there's time per couple of -- permitting, i have a couple of questions. as a virginiaan, i represent

many, many soybean farmers. one of virginia's top agriculture alex ports is -- agricultural exports is soybeans. i was speaking with a producer who mentioned that while he sells the bulk of his soybeans to china, it concerns him, the shift in the global soy market. and he is, like so many other virginia producers, still impacted by the shift in the market that occurred because of the trade wars initiated some years ago. so you've mentioned how maintaining trade relationships with china is important for the success of america's soybean industry and i would first ask you know in resons to my colleague -- response to my colleague's question, you were talking about diversification diversification of markets. do you have any suggestions could help american soy producers as they seek to gain access to diverse markets? mr. gackle: yes, thank you for the question. a few examples from

congressional action and things we have been advocating for for a long time, and i mentioned it earlier in a couple of the other q&a's and in my written and oral testimony. but funding through the farm bill as congress continues to consider passing the re-authorization of the farm bill, funding in the trade and market expansion space is very important. many of our growers were here last week on the hill and may have met with you as well and met with many of you in advocating for increased money in the programs. that has been stagnant for several years. the level of funding there. so doubling of market access program funds and foreign market development increasing in those funds as well. just critical in finding those new markets and providing some long-term certainty for the availability of funding, they are oversubscribed. so there's certainly demand. i think soy and other commodities show pretty consistently that we can --

there's a great return on investment with those dollars as well. bringing back to the farm. so i think that would be one area that congress could look at ensuring some more certainty. ms. spanberger: for some of my colleagues who might not have met with member producers on the hill last week, and certainly my conversations were excellent to this topic, could i talk through about why that funding matters. why saw that it is, as much as you and your fellow producers endeavor to produce the best product that you can having the support of the u.s. government in helping to market, establish new markets, make clear the value of that american product, are all things that you all -- you're producing the product but that boost is something that is of value to you is that a fair assessment? would you add to that? mr. gackle: yes, for sure. i think what it demonstrates to our foreign buyers and markets outside of china, to new markets we're trying to develop is we

have a unique public-private partnership here the u.s. to invest and showingreturn on investment when those programs are combined. >> when you are looking at the challenges that farmers have faced the past couple of years in the final time, is there anything you want to make sure that members of this committee understand as we head into finalizing the farm bill? part again. >> as we head into finalizing this farm bill. >> thank you for the question. farmers, like most businesses are trying to reduce risk and manage risk and protect family farms and businesses and short-term extensions of the farm bill provide some

certainty. a full re-authorization sooner rather than later would be helpful. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. thompson: i am pleased to recognize dr. baird from indiana for five minutes. mr. baird: we always learn something that is very useful for decision-making purposes as we talk about the farm bill and i'm going to start with another hoosier who has quite a presence in the state of indiana. so, mr. ambassador, you made reference that we need to expand our markets into other markets and you certainly have a tremendous knowledge in that area. so can you expand on that, what other countries that we might be

interested in? >> i think usda is starting -- i heard a number of trade missions that have taken place over the last six months in africa. it all comes down to funding, do they have the money to buy the basic raw ingredients soybean corn flour, wheat, rice. st thing and i come back home and say what can we do here in the united states of america to find more value-added opportunities for the crops we produce because we will continue to grow yields and as we do that and lose some markets and diminishing markets and supplying china, we better find a way to to use up this crop. biofuels have been good for the environment and economy and we need to continue to aviation fuel slows down a

little bit. at the end of the day, we need these products to make sure we have a vibrant economy. value you-add. i don't export a kern ell of corn or bean. it creates jobs and creates employment. mr. baird: absolutely. i couldn't agree with you more. agriculture is my background, but, you know, this country does just a wonderful job and we have the logistics and that is a real asset and a marketing tool for us as well as what you just said and what you just said is extremely important. but i want to switch over now to

in technology, science and research is my background and i'm a strong advocate of that and china is trying to take over the world and i go back to the time i was at purdue and we went down to brazil to show them how to raise soybeans for a humanitarian reason and a professor coming back and i asked him. he called me jimmy and he said extremely well, the only problem is those soybean fields have armed guards and didn't do much to help humanitarian efforts in that area. we taught them how to raise the soybeans and went on the world market. i'm asking what your thoughts are on how much we should invest in research, how important technology is going to be to improvg our productivity.

>> thank you for the question and i'll start out by saying, technology and adoption of the technology on our farms and on the farmland where i come from in north dakota, more and more important in being efficient and reliable producers and financially sustainable to have those technologies and those tools. the information we are able to gather as growers to make decisions each year as we plant a new crop, the information we get back from that technology is essential those decisions and comes to operating our operations efficiently and reducing the inputs. we talked about true reliance on foreign production of chemicals and fertilizers. as farmers we are very strong

consideration of what it is costing the cost of production for our crops. these types of things and there are about debt privacy and who does it be long to? it is farmer information and we want to project that as well. mr. baird: we have one last question, you have one of those planters that you can plant 10 or 11 mile-an-hour? >> you would be interested to come to my farm. we have some other obstacles in the way. mr. baird: i hear you, thank you very much. mr. thompson: i recognize the gentlelady from ohio, congresswoman brown. >> food security is national security. as a member of the select committee on strategic competition with the chinese is bipartisan concern on addressing the c.c.p.'sening tanglement in

our agriculture industry. and unfairly steal agriculture technology and products included again etically modified seeds and intellectual property is not up for grabs and the c.c.p. needs to engage with the world's global food and economy. the c.p. p is the global supply chain and u.s. and our allies. the food agriculture is one of 16 that is partly why i introduced the bipartisan critical supply chain commission act to identify gaps in our supply chain and reduce our reliance on any other outside nation. so the united states has been

losing its ability to manufacture agricultural including vitamins, animal feed and pesticide. why are we seeing this and what are some of the things we can do to address this? >> i think in terms of why we are seeing this, the evolution of where the industry went in terms of pricing why things went to pricing. 90% production happens in china. we need to move that back and your bill is exceptional. look at the supply chains and see where owrl vulnerabilities are and on resources and moving government resources in the right direction and ensuring we are putting it here

in the united states or a situation where we can depend on the supply. >> i would like to continue with you with the next question, what recommendations do you have to protect america's intellectual property specifically in agriculture? >> the resources need to be there. as i said earlier today, there is a lot of intelligence sharing and happened for a long period of time with the defense department agencies that work with the defense department and sharing with the u.s. government. i think that intelligence sharing resource has to go to the agriculture department now. they set up a new entity to do more sharing of intelligence and logistical issues in terms of sources and what not. as the department ofagriculture

gets familiar with that back and forth with industry and trust we will be able to build a system where we can have responsive engagement with industry and address the national security matters. >> my response, i have never seen any service or activity that can't be done better by the private sector than the government. i believe it is up to the private sector to protect this intellectual property and welcome we can get support. it's up to us to work hard to make sure we are protecting i.t. genetics, chemistries. i think their best position and best aibled to meet that need. >> thank you both. it is clear thatture national security is dependent upon a safe, resilient food system. i look forward to work on these

issues mr. chairman and i yield back. mr. thompson: i recognize mr. for five minutes. fee phenes phenes -- mr. feenstra: this is a topic we need to address and grateful. i want to play off dr. baird when it comes to intellectual property and what's going on. i'm the district that has the most corn and soybeans. 30,000 an acre one shocking story for my state andrepresentative gallagher noted this digging up hybrid corn seeds and found out they are sending these corn seeds back to china. and p.r.c. admitted he was trying to steal trade secrets. and cost 100 million and new

hybrids and takes time andy the them. can you talk about -- we know the dangers. we know china poses this risk but how can we -- how can we prevent some of this i.t. theft?

seed companies universities, government, find ways to address those complex issues. to me as a farmer, it does me no good in those situations to be possible to occur. looking for solutions. >> i agree. it's a partnership public-private from our universities to companies, you name it. it's very worrisome to see what is happening. could you expound on that. what are trends you are seeing in this area? >> expounding on it a little bit, some of the service i had. i remember when i was at the national security council dealing with trade matters and deal with intelligence on trade issues that were going on with our counterparts and it was lacking and didn't have the experience and didn't have the experience to go in and focus on

that intelligence. it was with defense and other matters. i think over time they got good at it. it's a matter of applying as you have done here with the focus on it for our intelligence folks whether that is justice, f.b.i. or n.i.a. and what is needed here to address these i.p. thefts and guard against the taking. mr. feenstra: i agree and pivot to you, ambassador in my district, a lot of corn and we have a lot of pork and when china has 6% of the pork and beef market and tremendous of soybeans and corn, it becomes a bit of a problem you mentioned africa a lot of ago we have to diversify. our biggest problem is going into supply chain

infrastructure. can you elaborate. i think of our dairy, pork and dairy industry. you need receive engineeration and go into africa, very next step on that foodhain, can you talk about that, ambassador of what are the obstacles of us getting into some of these countries? >> your point about the livestock and amount of livestock, beef, pork and poultry that is going into china we have seen growth in those two years. when you look at infrastructure there is no cold supply chain and very little investment in many countries across physical and i was in sudan about a year

ago building toll roads. once you get into the the country, there is no infrastructure. and what we are supposed to be doing at the food and agriculture organizes and hasn't happened. mr. feenstra: use some of these dollars from different export and with that, i yield back. mr. thompson: the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentlelady from oregon. >> thank you to the panelists for being here. as we think about the impact of china, i think it is impor nation's agricultural economy doesn't stop in our field. our nation's food and beverage industry is the largest domestic

manufacturing and millions of americans rely on every day. and myof oregon plays an important role being a supplier of candidate fruits in particular. this industry sees the impact of china as well. and the candidate food industry has record breaking growth and economic activity in states all across the country including oregon. consumers may not be aware that candidate goods are produced in china. american grown candidate goods are sold under the same label making it difficult for consumers to know what are the sources of their purchasees what policy steps would you suggest to bolster u.s. farmers who remain on ingredients and where the food they eat is actually

grown. >> there has always been a lot of origin of country labeling. but we are not going to say the chinese play by rules. i understand your concerns. i was in alaska and spoke at a conference up there and amount of fish being shipped out of alaska for further processing in china and back to the united states is substantial and you ask yourself, why can't we do it here at home. what is the head wind stopping us. whether it's fish soybeans or protein product, we need to figure out value-added opportunities here at home and creating jobs for u.s. citizens. >> i concur with the ambassador had to say here. labeling issues, tracking exports and tracking imports of what china is doing and putting

the focus on that. the department ofcommerce to be able to identify these issues and work with the department ofagriculture to make sure that we are ensuring that china is not cheating on this matter. >> did you have anything to add? >> just briefly and very good question and p specific example at home in north daght. u.s. soy american soybean association finding new domestic uses and as was mentioned earlier, we are not going to stop growing soybeans and finding those new uses and in north dakota we have one new one plant that has come on-line and new opportunity for oil. and a big by-product is the new

meals opportunity we are going to have. and talked about value added and those types of authorities. china is violations. in 2021 u.s. banned poe taters due to forced labor practices. beyond labor practices china engages in i.t. theft and cyberattacks and increased their purchase of foreign land. i am focused on combatting china's bad behavior and acknowledging that our trade relationship is critical to the american economy. in 2022, oregon exported $300

million of agricultural products to cine and i hear from constituents about the importance of foreign market development programs and importance of exports to not be understated. to the whole panel, we as members of congress think of our relationship with china. what do our constituents face while facing the china's egregious behavior. >> try to diminish the negative that come back on u.s. producers.

strategic surgical and trade sometimes when you go with big reactions if you do them surgically and building out on the right laws, it's understandable and you don't have a big splash. >> it's been a number of years a few years ago tay china, we had a trade imbalance and over $500 billion sales to the united states and $350 billion to china. we have to increase our sales to china we have to balance it. >> i yield back. mr. thompson: i recognize the gentleman from missouri.

>> thank you to witnesses for being here today, i appreciate that. i don't have to tell you that china has everything in we do and poisoning our children with tiktok and poisoning our bodies and killing 100,000 fellow citizens each year through fept nil. i sit on the house armed services committee and i represent two bases. we are concentrating being an effective deterrent against the c.c.p. there are sore generals are saying we could be at war with china by 2027. that's three years. we are trying to get ready for any potential conflict. i believe we have to do everything we can to keep our country safe from china's influence and espionage and

agriculture is a critical part of the conversation. our food security is national security. we have to be prepared for what could be coming. in 2022, last report showed china earned a lot of acres in the united states of america and yet you cannot go there and buy land. we introduced an act to protect americans and land and ownership by china venezuela cuba. they shouldn't be able to buy an outhouse in the united states as far as i'm concerned. why do we protect our property here in the united states that wants to replace us as a world power? >> excellent question in terms

of what we are dealing and having to address in terms of the communist chinese party and how they effectuated recent laws that have weaponized private companies and put their private citizens and that the issue. what should we allow given that china has put in place a system and laws that make and weapon nighs their companies and put their individual citizens in a position. >> i think it is time to circle the wagons. we can halfway do this. our governor had an executive order last year prohibiting land sales within 10 miles of a military land base. but i'm of the firm belief but case us on

trade. ambassador, you just mentioned we need to increase our trade with china this may hurt our trade. but we havgot to protect america. what contingency plans say we are at war with china over taiwan in the next four, to five years, what do soybean producers have to protect our investments here in america? >> and provided some highlights earlier in oral and written testimony. we learned from the 20818 tariffs and actions from china just how much that type of situation can affect our bottom line on the farm and as i mentioned before, looking to diversify and grow new markets and there are risks there when you rely on a market or country. the scale of china being so

large makes that risker even greater and see more farmer dollars. finding new exports and talk about another contingency is just more domestic demand and uses for what we are doing here. again, we continue to outproduce that demand and renewable diesel. so we are going to doll both. >> i appreciate you being here. this is a very serious matter and most americans are asleep when it comes to the threat of communist china. the big bad wolf is at the door and we better make sure our house is made of brick and not straw and not get blown in. and i yield back. mr. thompson: i recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. davis, from -- for five

minutes. mr. davis: the members have highlighted today agriculture is a trade dependent industry and china is a top trading partner. how would you prioritize the most practical safeguards that can be put into place that will allow the u.s. agriculture community export to china and not have prices manipulated. >> a major, major pork producer, i think whether it's pork or beef or the grains we produce on our farms back in the midwest there is no doubt we know they conduct war games when china takes back taiwan.

we need to do the same as producers to make sure how do we react and prepare before this actually happens. so let's prepare now. let's not wait for it. we have to continue to sell to cine but time we balance that trade out. >> there are major u.s. companies. in terms of processes of sales how their supply chains. companies are going that way and the united states needs to focus in on this and members here

today and yourself made this a big focus in terms of what should be the priorities. and i think this is an exercise that the ag department has to work with industry and you all to make sure those priorities are in line with national security and food security.

and have been caught to smuggle them out of the country. my question is there any way to he he evaluate or that technology is not being exploited by china for their own

advantage? >> i thank you congressman. great question and right in the forefront. we have to be vigilant in terms of having our intelligence agencies work with the department ofagriculture and provide that intelligence information to spot and identify where the threat is going to eminate and capture before the curves. the second part of the equation, i think getting our cybersecurity systems in line with the agriculture and wrap on the technologies that are out there and china is controlling the market on and produce it here in the united states. one is diplomatic presence around the world and two economic t and fourth is informational and we are tapping in and collaborating

across usda c.i.a. to have the best information what china is doing and we tend to trust everybody. farmers are the best of helping someone when a barn below zero down. they don't worry about getting financial support. we trust people and do things together but we have let our guard down in guarding our intellectual property and we need the support we can get from you. >> it sounds like we have a lot of work ahead of us. i yield back. >> i'm going to recognize myself for five minutes. it's correct to the roster. thank you to our panelists and

apologize being in and out of the room three committees at the same time today. so let me jump to ambassador -- for give me if this is redundant from previous questions. we saw over 10 years ago one of the largest chinese ac which significances with smith field and the focus of china and what it means a danger to american agriculture and the american food supply as more and more as this proliferates and little has been done to put the brakes on it. with the chinese government plan to buy up farmland and we see a lot with the adjacent lands to

our military bases and our important military installations. bring that into focus for our u.s. producers if these facilities such as processing plants are more and more owned by chinaes or other outside influences like that. what's that going to do to harm the ability to have them take their products and market it to the change that we are kind of used to these days. ambassador. >> the comment smithfield they are benefiting from that relationship and place for their pork to be processed and bics ported. understand why the chinese bought smghtfield foods. it wasn't for the production

capacity as it was for the intellectual property. every pork producer in china they had two pigs and fed them the excess and got african swine fever that occurred nation and needed to consolidate and bring in the latest science and pork herd. only way to acquire a wire smithfield to acquire their intellectual property. mr. lamalfa: i want to shift in my remaining time here. with the chinese cartel going on with so much in the drug culture and so much of it going on in noarnt california and the locals are seeming almost powerless and

short on resources vast proliferation of are chinese cartel marijuana growth. you should see it the vast number of greenhousees right now it's private property which makes it a different enforcement. it has been on federal lands which federal lands with the forest service and not making the moves but it provides its own challenges on that. so we have much organized crime tied to cha and illicit marijuana trade and horrific for the environment and horrific for law enforcement and less of sense of security and water being carted without permits and

environmental damage. so these chinese gangs have been distributing the end product and very dangerous chemicals that are not available at all to american farmers in the process. can you emphasize a little bit what would you tell us about the international crime effects in our national security as well as the local quality life? and talking about northern california and other ones in trinity county and investment on federal lands. please touch on that. >> thank you congressman. and it is a very serious issue that thankfully with earl leadership, the u.s. focus gets placed upon it. the resources we have just needs

to be borne on it. the customs, c.b.p. and seeing what is happening on the border to address that and getting our just ties department to make sure that they prioritize this issue in terms these cartels are possible ways you can draw focus on that in your role as congressman. mr. lamalfa: inaction or reluctance to come in and enforce and with that, i would like to now recognize the gentlewoman from hawaii. >> as the only asian have american of the asian committee

i remind my colleagues that words matter and as they deliberate we must consider the impacts of our words and policy decisions. i serve on the house armed services and my line is on the front line of defense and understand the and national security that being said. the rhetoric will encourage and invite discrimination against chinese americans. dpofer said we have become acountry being off ebbedded by each other and rhetoric leading to violence against asian americans. one was murdered at the height of antichinese sentiment. congress because the hate crimes

during the pandemic. no one has consequences. [indisce they were subjected to exclusionary land laws in different states and forced to sell their pronts. representative of the cure is not worse than the disease. and before proposing broadband that could have significant impacts on asian-americans there is a lot more to invest including agricultural land. i know you have these types of questions. i'm not saying we shouldn't have this discussion but they need to

be do you understanded. [indiscernible] i welcome to come together on policies to combat the c.c.p. while protecting our communities. the appropriations bill will give the secretary of agriculture. how will this impact to monitor investments and are there any changes to to better address this? [indiscernible]

>> and national security problems. >> do you want to answer that? if not the usda has developed a real-time data system and under any anpreparing for as well? >> could you repeat the question. [indiscernible] any privacy concerns for such a system to build in safeguards?

>> i don't see any problem there. >> i know my time is up. i may have further questions to submit to the record. according to estimates of economic and agricultural research and as of twowght and moved -- [indiscernible] what investments in research should we remain and i'm on the armed services committee -- [indiscernible] what more do we need to be doing since they are investing and we are not. >> i think the question from again the producer standpoint and speaking with the american soybean association whether it is at the federal level or state

level and increased confidence that i will be able to produce a crop under challenging circumstances whether it's weather or other type of pests the risks we are seeing on the farm. those dollars are very important. >> i would like to be able to keep up. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank chairmandomp son and appreciate governor noem and the committee for being here. i represent the big first district of kansas which central and

western kansas and number one producer of beef of wheat and sour gum. and we see every side of the supply chain. we know in kansas that food security is national security. and i tell people all the time and we are the free country we are, one of which we never had to rely on another country for our and this hearing has highlighted the negative impact that china can have on agriculture chain and i chair those concerns including larning tracts. any threat has to be taken very seriously. i'm chairman of the subcommittee and i would like to to china's questionable ambitions.

china desires america's protein products and investments in securing our protein and emulating genetics overseas. given china's track record, can china be conducting espionage to acquire that united states has been developing rather than researching and developing it themselves and what should we think about that? >> that is an excellent question and thank you for absolutely do think that china would do. there is a reason why the committee on foreign investment one of the national security priorities was u.s. biological information. and if something china is gathering for its intelligence, it's certainly because food security for china is imperative

to their survival. in terms of how we guard against it i think just being vigilant of putting their resources and steal that information. >> i appreciate what you said. agriculture is very trusting. our family farms i can't imagine taking a piece of wire from my neighbor much less stealing intellectual property. we cannot forget that is what we see from other global actors. trade is key and we have to foster nonchinese markets to add resiliency to the global markets to our ag producers. market access program and critical components. i have been advocate of working doubling dollars on s and d. how can programs in your view

develop trade relationships with american allies and grow ag exports when china is a large threat and biden administration has not been pursuing the free trade agreement? >> start by saying there is a relationships that we have been able to build. 112 markets across the country is what i mentioned in my oral and written testimony and the return on investment but to make the point again, these aren't just taxpayer dollars but farmer dollars whether it is soybeans. farmers are demonstrating by investing own dollars and tremendous return when it comes back to the farm and return on investment there. we have a history of showing how

those relationships are built and that takes time to build those relationships and esta we want to be a reliable partner. >> incredibly point. but we have seen china's domestic ag production grow 530% since year 2000. how does it impact our ag economy? >> we have seen 500% increase over the past decade and comes from u.s. innovation that has been stolen from us and lost that competitive edge. i have no reason to believe they won't continue at a rapid rate and got our technology, the digital side. and they are going to continue

to grow that. prmd and feed 1.4 billion people. i want to say one final thing. when president xi jing ping and putin said who would think we have control of what you do with

the soybean association. you are part of team and producing and providing for

america. iowa illinois, we are part of this team together. i am proud of what we have been able to export with u.s. agriculture soybeans being number one in the field. the challenge is 60% of that is going to china. talk to us what we should be doing to help diversify and make sure we are not dependent on a sole customer that could use this in the trade war against us. >> i appreciate you highlighting that important part of that and doing what we do to supply the world. so much of that reliance on china is critical. we have talked about something >> thank you. i appreciate that. what we're doing is trying to

supply the farmers around the world. finding new markets is critical. we've talked about map and f.m.d. something i haven't mentioned yet is the new program of usda under the regional agricultural program which is looking at markets in new and developing places, places that aren't traditionally reliant on m.a.p. and f.m.d. i think congress continuing to value and looking for return on investment we get from the m.a.p. and f.n.d. dollars and sounds like a lot of money in the access to foreign market development but the need is there. the program has proven throughout the years that there is not enough funds there to meet the demand. we could always use more in building those new markets so when we look at possible challenges to the china market depending on policy decisions in the u.s., it's important to keep

those resources there and increase them and bring that return back to farmers. >> it's not just our markets we're able to sell overseas. mr. nunn: we look at brazil which has been enabled with chinese investment, they're a lead producer of soybeans and is a threat and others subsidizing their markets to go after these same markets, is that correct? mr. gakle: that's correct. if you've been to brazil you see the tremendous opportunity they have to continue to increase their production both through putting more acres or hectors into production and adding new land to that and they're increasing their yield and spending money on research as well which is something we spoke about earlier. they're getting better at what they're doing and their improvements to infrastructure highways or ports or rails. they're making all the the improvements that are going to put them in a better position around the world. so competing with that is crucial. mr. nunn: i'd like to talk to you on the national security

side. we've looked at a number of things on this committee about what we're doing in the state of iowa one, to stop china from buying farmland in the united states highlighted by my friend mr. feenstra. we've seen people take the genetic material and replicating it in china by taking a farm field, and it's happening. the chinese government has worked diligently to d.n.a. of humans in their country and fair to say they're coming after agriculture whether it's growing a field to growing a barn. would you agree? >> absolutely agree. china is in the world of biologics and where they know the next round of technology goes and especially big data and having artificial intelligence to pull together and try to innovate or steal energy from us and leapfrog from us whether human biology or in the agricultural space. mr. nunn: i'm proud we've been able to protect small business and financing act i led and able to pass as well as what we're

doing in the cybersecurity and agricultural act. i want to highlightur work, is there an advantage to creating regional cybersecurity rely himself at our land grant and regional schools like iowa state on areas that can be helpful? we now know the top three sectors under attack, financial services energy, and ag. the threat is real. mr. daily: the knowledge is imperative. china has build up cybersecurity warfare division that's constantly going at business and given the business you've mentioned, ag is where they're going and they're going to put all their resources into it and we have to counter it. that building out the expertise is imperative. mr. nunn: i appreciate that and yield back my time. mr. thompson: the gentleman's

time has expired and recognize mr. van orderren. mr. vaunterren. mr. van orden. mr. vanorden: due to the biden's administration war in energy it would not be prudent for companies to start working on plants to provide nutrients and pest control agents in the united states right now. i don't think people quite understand what that means. mr. tom, thank you for pointing that out. we have to stay ahead of china and the biden administration can't get out of their own way. so that is incredibly important. i just want to make sure we didn't skip over that. so i also want to compliment the biden administration doing something that is absolutely amazing that they've pulled off a foreign policy miracle in that they've driven china and russia closer together since the death

of stalin. it sounds like a joke but i'm not being trite. that's what the biden administration has done by their horrible foreign policy decisionmaking stuff. i want to ask you a couple things about beans if that's ok because they're very important. and so we produce a lot in the third congressional district in the state of wisconsin, and also corn. i read all you guys' testimony in detail and thank so you much for it. i just have a question because in fact, brazil is eating our lunch because we're feeding it to them. today is a good day for you duarte. we had a huge problem when the previous administration did trade sanctions, like 27% or whatever the heck it was. but we've recovered since that, right. so now you're selling roughly the same amount of beans to before though brazil increased their capacity. there's a couple questions. if we had stuck with it would

that still be the case, meaning would china have finally come around and started to work with the united states because we stood for longer than one administration, in your opinion sir? >> thank you for the question. and not being a foreign policy expert, i might not have all the answers here. mr. gackle: part one of that was the fades 1 china entered into to get back part of that market. what we're seeing is there is no enforcement mechanism to that unfortunately. so i would say we haven't seen a full recovery inina market since 2018. appreciate that a lot of it has come back under that agreement but some of this long term, what i call long term damage to the u.s. reliability we've historically been viewed as reliable suppliers around the world and part of the 2018 tariff deal we might not get back is that full confidence that foreign markets across the world had as the u.s. as a rable

provider. mr. van orden: i see it as a net positive because the united states needs to be viewed as someone who will stand with democracy and freedom. and x issue jinping had multiple famines and quite frankly you don't care. the soviet union murdered millions by starving themselves to date when they did their thing. but do we as american farmers have is more resiliency built into our systems because we are getting back to where we were. do we have more resiliency built in our systems than brazil has the potential to expand their capacity and can we wait china out? china has to feed their people every day, so do we have the resiliency built into our systems that if we stuck to our guns like president trump did and not fold the cards like president biden did if we stood strong will we be able to

maintain our industry? mr. gackle: that's tough to predict but will start to say that farmers across the countrythe critical issues you're talking about when it comes to china and china and threats posed. i believe that's from growers speaking for myself and i'm sure others, to say that we have the entire resiliency, one thing i'll mentioned and we haven't talked about the outlook for farm income over the next 2-5 years is not great. prices are dropping, the cost of input may not be increasing as fast but our cost of production is generally going up. our profitabilityability is going down. mr. van orden: i have 20 seconds. we're not getting inputs in until fuel costs go down because it's predicated on diesel fuel and has to get out. one question for you mr. tom. if you can go back in time, do you think the united states of america should be feeding nazi germany in 1938 before their

invasion of poland in 1939, should we be providing them with food and aid? mr. tom: well, bringing it up -- you want to talk about china today on that? you want to talk about -- mr. van orden: i want to highlight we're essentially feeding nazi germany in 1938 and do you think that's an appropriate use of american resources, would it have been then and is it now with china because that's where we're at with china, we're in 1938. haven't invaded poland yet but on the horizon. i want to sell as much as we can. the demand for protein is growing at a rapid rate whether india or china or the developing world and the middle east. the reality is we're the best suited to meet that demand but again, it's strength of the united states. it's something we can sell and need to bring it back home. again, we're not going to maintain that competitive edge unless we start protecting our own. mr. van orden: i understand. my time expired but if i had the

choice to sell food and give aid to hitler in 1938, i would not have done so. with that i yield back. mr. thompson: the time has expired and i'll take the liberty as we close out to recognize myself for five minutes. votes have been called probably eight or nine minutes ago. we have a fair amount of time left on the clock and even after that clock winds up. so one quick question, your testimony highlights reports and the usda faces with afida and you mentioned foreign agriculture land holdings within the united states increased 30% since 2019. outside the recommendations within the report, can you expand on other changes congress should look to to address the gaps? mr. daly: thank you mr. chairman. it's a very good question. in terms of the reporting being done, i think what's interesting

to me and what i've seen in government and in the private sector in terms of the way china is doing some of its investments, it's doing it in complex ways, either through private equity intent advertise or limited partners versus being general partners and i think capturing the complexity of that reporting in terms of ownership would be very useful and also in terms of land use, but i think the recommendation of the g.a.o. are useful as a starting place but looking at how the chinese are structuring that investment and where they're doing it in directions that can't be caught is important and where they're declaring their ownership in the other land category should be examined. mr. thompson: before i yield back my time, i'd like to address the gentleman from massachusetts' comments. we're all aware of california's oppressive proposition 12 mandate as well as similar mandates in states like massachusetts. i'm sure you all have heard me say i want a fix for these

mandates. my colleague may think this is a done deal, the supreme court made it abundantly clear that congress can and quite frankly my reading of the opinions, should address this. we do have a farm bill that's coming up here hopefully in the very near future. and because of the communications that the supreme court did in their opinions, they made it abundantly clear congress has the ability to address the inner state commerce chaos we've seen arise since then. and i'm a supporter of rights and i understand state laws may have limited territorial effects but any state and local laws that control production outside of their jurisdictions are inherently harmful to interstate commerce. the eats act and similar proposed fixes would not restrict states from creating laws for their residents and

would just ensure that american farmers outside of those jurisdictions would continue to be allowed to produce according to the standards of the state that they produce in. any other characterization of what these proposals would do is false and misleading and quite frankly is a stain on this committee's work. and related to china, no one has made any sort of coherent argument explaining how one state dictateing to another how to farm helps out china. china didn't ask for the help. farmers have asked for the help. and while my colleague from massachusetts was ranting about china's influence on my decisionmaking, my staff at that point were meeting with over 30 american "sportscenter" producers who all asked for a prop 12 fix in order to continue running their family owned operations. i'm trying to have a serious

policy conversation while some of my colleagues are standing behind a convenient straw man instead of coming to the table and finding solutions. i've committed to finding effects that benefit american producers and no one else and i intend to find one. that concludes my questions. closing statements, you know, just thank so much to our witnesses, just a wealth of information that you have shared with us. i think it's insightful and helpful. very specific thoughts and recommendations that we need to be pursuing. as always, thank you to our staff 6, our personal office staffs and committee staffs that do such great work to help ma sure we do these types of hearings sufficiently. food security is national security and food production acreage and food process that is influenced through the purchase

or theft of intellectual property influenced by the chinese communist government is a significant risk. there must be legal consequences that serve as a deterrent and a preventative measure. we've heard really, i think to continue to build on. safeguards are warranted. even outside of this committee. i'm very pr education and work force space we've proposed a bill, introduced a bill that would create a pilot for incorporating cybersecurity into career and technical education. we need people with those skills to be on the front line, you know. we talked about the massive data of agriculture and those systems need people working on the development and maintenance of those who have great cybersecurity skills. so there's a broad width of

solutions here and certainly having people with the right skills to do our best to be able to prevent the stealing of intellectual property. that's just one small example. so we need to encourage usda to aggressively work on on this space. we need to encourage usda to aggressively work on new trade agreements and new markets for our agriculture commodities to manage future risk. we must strengthen our invest ment in both agriculture research and quite frankly their trade programs, foreign market development and our market we need to encourage, i believe trade language for usdr to be able to be equipped with that would prevent -- do our best to prevent retaliatory in trade agreements retaliatory tariffs

on american agriculture commodities because any time there's a trade war the low hanging fruit, so to speak, is american agriculture. i remember first coming here unit the obama administration -- under the obama administration and there were chinese manufactured tires creating some type of accident risk, i don't remember what it was specifically swe imposed a tariff on these tires, or the obama administration did and in response, china put a tariff on our chickens, ducks, and turkeys. i think it's immoral that any country, including the united states, would do retaliatory tariffs an essential thing as food. we ought to look at language that somehow we can at least trade discussions, we'll say when the tariff disputes are completely unrelated to agriculture. so once again to our witnesses here today, thank you so much for your service for your

expertise and for joining us here. and the -- under the rules of the committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementry written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by a member. this hearing on the committee on agriculture is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org]

all right. all right. today we're going to pick up from the post. the post american revolution

era. so we're going into the 1780s in i'm calling this the development of the republic. so we're coming out of this out of this war. this conflict. i needed you to make sure that understand why revolution happened