[WPRT 109-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress
1st Session COMMITTEE PRINT WMCP:
109-7
_______________________________________________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
__________
WRITTEN COMMENTS
on
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO U.S. TRADE LAWS AND MISCELLANEOUS DUTY
SUSPENSION BILLS
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SEPTEMBER 2, 2005
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-732 WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
JERRY WELLER, Illinois XAVIER BECERRA, California
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
RON LEWIS, Kentucky EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
MARK FOLEY, Florida STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
KEVIN BRADY, Texas MIKE THOMPSON, California
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JOHN LINDER, Georgia
BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
DEVIN NUNES, California
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JERRY WELLER, Illinois JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK FOLEY, Florida JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of Tuesday, July 25, 2005, announcing request for
written comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills........................ 1
Revised Advisory of Friday, August 5, 2005, announcing additional
bills on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills............................ 19
------
H.R. 53: No comments submitted.
H.R. 178:
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN, Charles D. Brandenburg
and William C. Pitcher, letter................................. 21
H.R. 445:
National Retail Federation, Erik O. Autor, statement............. 22
H.R. 521:
Dairy Australia, Victoria, Australia, Robert Pettit, letter...... 22
Fonterra (USA), Inc., Lemoyne, PA, Edward J. Farrell, letter..... 26
General Mills, Jeffrey A. Shapiro, letter........................ 29
Grocery Manufacturers Association, Mary Sophos, letter........... 30
Kerry Americas, Beloit, Wisconsin, Stan McCarthy, letter......... 32
National Milk Producers Federation, Arlington, Virginia, Jaime
Castaneda, statement........................................... 33
New Zealand, Government of, His Excellency John Wood, Ambassador,
letter......................................................... 39
Novartis Nutrition Corporation, Washington, DC, Tracy Haller,
letter......................................................... 39
RetireSafe, Oakton, Virginia, Charles G. Hardin, letter.......... 41
U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients, letter............... 41
H.R. 617: No comments submitted.
H.R. 636: No comments submitted.
H.R. 637: No comments submitted.
H.R. 638: No comments submitted.
H.R. 639: No comments submitted.
H.R. 640: No comments submitted.
H.R. 641: No comments submitted.
H.R. 642: No comments submitted.
H.R. 643: No comments submitted.
H.R. 644: No comments submitted.
H.R. 645: No comments submitted.
H.R. 646: No comments submitted.
H.R. 647: No comments submitted.
H.R. 648: No comments submitted.
H.R. 707: No comments submitted.
H.R. 915:
Aimaq, Muzhdah, Davis, California, letter........................ 44
American Numismatic Association, Colorado Springs, CO,
Christopher Cipoletti, letter.................................. 45
American Numismatic Society, John W. Adams, Boston, MA, Kenneth
L. Edlow, New York, NY, Peter P. Gaspar, St. Louis, MO, Robert
A. Kandel, New Rochelle, NY, Clifford L. Mishler, Iola, WI,
Emilio M. Ortiz, San Juan, PR, Douglass F. Rohrman, Kenilworth,
IL, Stanley DeForest Scott, New York, NY, David B. Simpson,
Tenafly, NJ, Peter K. Tompa, Washington, DC, Arnold-Peter C.
Weiss, MD, Barrington, RI, John Whitney Walter, Plandome, NY,
joint letter................................................... 46
American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, MA, Douglas R.
Clark, Ph.D., letter........................................... 47
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, Gainesville, MO, Wayne G. Sayles,
letter and attachment.......................................... 48
H.R. 915--Continued
Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, MA, Jane C.
Waldbaum, letter............................................... 55
Archaeological Institute of America, Bryn Mawr, PA, James C.
Wright, letter................................................. 56
Archaeological Institute of America, Long Island Society
Melville, NY, Naomi and Jesse Taub, letter..................... 57
Archaeological Institute of America, Milwaukee Society Milwaukee,
WI, Katherine Murrell, letter.................................. 57
Archaeological Legacy Institute, Eugene, OR, Richard M.
Pettigrew, letter.............................................. 58
Association of Dedicated Byzantine Collectors, Framingham, MA,
Prudence Morgan Fitts, letter.................................. 59
Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, New
York, NY, Elizabeth Simpson, letter............................ 59
Braly, Bobby R., University of Tennessee, Frank H. McClung
Museum, Knoxville, TN, letter.................................. 60
Britt, Kelly M., Columbia University, Lancaster, PA, letter...... 60
Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., Lancaster, PA, Eric James
Mcfadden, letter............................................... 61
Creamer, Winifred Wheaton, IL, letter............................ 63
Dancsecs, Mark Stephen and Soraya Delawari, Pasadena, CA, joint
letter......................................................... 63
Delawari, Qudrat and Yasmine, San Diego, CA, joint letter........ 64
DiMarzio, Paul, Bethel, CT, letter............................... 64
Eagle, Tara, Oxford, OH, letter.................................. 65
Eckert, Suzanne L., Texas A&M University, College Station, TX,
letter......................................................... 66
Engineering and Science Students for the Reconstruction of
Afghanistan, Fremont, CA, Masood Sattari, letter............... 66
European Association of Archaeologists, Exeter, United Kingdom,
Anthony Harding, letter........................................ 67
Fischer, John E., Wabash College, Louisville, KY, letter......... 68
Foley, Kevin P., Waltham, MA, letter............................. 68
Ford, Anabel, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, letter 69
Gardner, Gregg, New York, letter................................. 70
German Archaeological Institute, Cairo, Egypt, Daniel Polz,
letter......................................................... 70
Ghous, Mostafa, Castro Valley, CA, letter........................ 71
HRA, Inc., Conservation Archaeology, Henderson, NV, Suzanne B.
Eskenazi, letter............................................... 72
Industry Council for Tangible Assets, Severna Park, MD, Eloise A.
Ullman, letter................................................. 73
Ingleston, Kevin W., Frankfort, MI, letter....................... 73
International Association of Professional Numismatists,
Professional Numismatists Guild, and the Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild, Peter K. Tompa, joint statement.............. 74
Jauch, Christine Irene, Oxford, OH, letter....................... 79
Johnson, Lucille Lewis, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, letter. 79
Johnson, Matthew, Encino, CA, letter............................. 80
Kuns, Erin, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, letter.......... 80
Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation Chicago,
IL, Patty Gerstenblith, letter................................. 81
Leigh, Shawna, The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA,
letter......................................................... 83
Lundn, Staffan, Gteborg, Sweden, letter.......................... 83
Marshall, Sydne B., Westfield, NJ, letter........................ 84
Peres, Tanya M., Murfreesboro, Tennessee, letter................. 85
Pick, Robert O., Las Cruces, NM, letter.......................... 85
Rasmussen, Josephine Munch, Oslo, Norway, letter................. 86
Ray, Paul, Berrien Springs, Michigan, letter..................... 86
Redman, Angela, Seattle, WA, letter.............................. 87
Saving Antiquities for Everyone, Jersey City, NJ, Cindy Ho,
letter......................................................... 88
Society for American Archaeology, Kenneth M. Ames, letter........ 88
The Field Museum, Chicago, IL, Deborah Bekken, letter............ 89
The World Archaeological Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Dr Claire
Smith, Dr Larry J. Zimmerman, letter........................... 90
Underhill, Anne P., Chicago, Illinois, letter.................... 91
Unidroit-L, Goleta, CA, David E. Welsh, letter................... 92
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC,
Jodi Magness, letter........................................... 97
H.R. 1068:
American Iron & Steel Institute, Cold Finished Steel Bar
Institute, Committee on Pipe & Tube Imports, Metals Service
Center Institute, Specialty Steel Industry of North America,
Steel Manufacturers Association, United Steelworkers, and Wire
Rod Producers' Coalition, joint statement...................... 98
American Wire Producers Association, Alexandria, VA, Robert
Moffitt, letter................................................ 98
Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable
Manufacturers, Jeffrey S. Levin, letter........................ 100
Independent Steelworkers Union, Weirton, WV, Mark Glyptis, letter 101
Trinity Industries, Inc., Dallas, TX, letter..................... 103
H.R. 1115:
Neville Peterson, LLP, New York, NY, John M. Peterson, letter.... 105
H.R. 1121:
A.C. Houston Lumber Company, North Las Vegas, NV, Michael M.
Murray, letter................................................. 108
Accent Furniture, Maryland Heights, MO, Dennis Boyd, letter...... 109
AK Steel Corporation, Middletown, OH, James L. Wainscott, letter. 110
Alcoa, Russell C. Wisor, letter.................................. 111
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Pittsburgh, PA, Jon D.
Walton, statement.............................................. 112
Alperts, Inc., Seekonk, MA, Hershel L. Alpert, letter............ 113
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 114
American Chamber of Commerce in Germany e.V., Berlin, Germany,
Dierk Mueller, letter.......................................... 115
American Iron and Steel Institute, statement..................... 118
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, Auggie Tantillo,
letter......................................................... 119
American Wholesale Furniture, Inc, Indianapolis, IN, Jim Mahin,
letter......................................................... 120
Ampac Packaging, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, John Q. Baumann, letter.... 121
Ash Grove Cement Company, Overland Park, KS, Charles T.
Sunderland, letter............................................. 122
Association of Food Industries, Inc., Neptune, NJ, Jeffrey S.
Levin, letter.................................................. 123
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Arlington,
VA, Timothy MacCarthy, letter.................................. 124
Backyard Ventures, Amarillo, TX, Michael Thomas DeArmon,
statement...................................................... 125
Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers Association, Birmingham,
United Kingdom, Kathryn Joy Hartigan, letter................... 126
Bartlett, Josiah H., Moultonboro, NH, statement.................. 129
Best Buy Co., Inc., Richfield, MN, Paula J. Prahl, letter........ 130
British Embassy, David Manning, letter........................... 131
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, Berlin, Germany, Beatrice
Khne and Sigrid Zirbel, statement.............................. 132
Buzzi Unicem USA Inc., Bethlehem, PA, David A. Nepereny, Michael
Berlin, William Humenuk, Bruce Keim, joint letter.............. 132
Cal-Asia Truss, Concord, CA, Allen Erickson, statement........... 133
Calfiornia Minnesota Honey Farms, Eagle Bend, MN, Jeff Anderson.. 134
California Cut Flower Commission, Watsonville, CA, Lee Murphy,
letter......................................................... 135
California Portland Cement Company, Glendora, CA, James A.
Repman, letter................................................. 137
Canadian Embassy, Frank McKenna, letter.......................... 138
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Reading, PA, William A.
Wellock, letter................................................ 138
Cattle Producers of Washington, Soap Lake, WA, Chad Henneman,
letter......................................................... 139
Censea Inc., Northfield, IL, Jeffrey A. Stern, letter............ 141
Century Furniture, Hickory, NC, Robert J. Maricich, joint letter. 142
Chambers Truss Inc, Fort Pierce, FL, Robert John Becht, statement 143
City Furniture, Tamarac, FL, Keith Koenig, letter................ 144
Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, Barry Cullen, statement....... 145
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, David A. Hartquist, letter. 146
Confederation of British Industry, London, United Kingdom, Gary
J. Campkin, letter............................................. 147
Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU,
Brussels, Belgium, Daniela Israelachwili, letter............... 148
Consumers for World Trade, Maureen Smith, letter................. 148
Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition, Michael I. Fanning,
letter......................................................... 150
Contessa Premium Foods, Inc., San Pedro, CA, Gregory J. Morrow,
letter......................................................... 152
Copeland Furniture, Bradford, VT, Timothy E. Copeland, letter.... 153
Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Joseph Mayer, letter....... 153
H.R. 1121--Continued
Council Tool, Lake Waccamaw, NC, John M. Council, letter......... 154
Crawfish Processors Alliance, Breaux Bridge, LA, Adam J. Johnson,
letter......................................................... 156
DAK Americas LLC, Charlotte, NC, Richard A. Lane Jr., letter..... 158
Eagle Materials Inc., Dallas, TX, Steven R. Rowley, letter....... 159
Embassy of Chile, Andres Bianchi, letter......................... 160
Embassy of India, Ronen Sen, letter.............................. 161
Empress International, Ltd., Port Washington, NY, Timothy
McLellan, letter............................................... 161
European Chemical Industry Council, Brussels, Belgium, Rene Van
Sloten, letter................................................. 162
European Commission Delegation, Angelos Pangratis, letter........ 163
European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, statement
and attachment................................................. 165
European Steel Tube Association, Marc Bodineau, letter........... 167
Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations,
Frankfurt, Germany, Andreas Rowold, letter..................... 168
Floral Trade Council, Ovid, MI, William R. Carlson, letter....... 169
Florida Forest Products, Largo, FL, Richard Cashman, statement... 170
Food and Drink Federation, Melanie Leech, London, England, letter 172
French Federation of ores, industrial minerals and non ferrous
metals, Paris, France, Patricia Vasseur, letter................ 172
Gates Corporation, Denver, CO, A.L. Stecklein, letter............ 173
Gebr. Reinfurt GmbH & Co. Kg, Wuerzburg, Germany, Sabine
Reinfurt-Jaeger, letter........................................ 173
General Mills UK, J.G. Moseley, Middlesex, England, letter....... 175
Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., Tampa, FL, Phillip E. Casey, letter..... 175
Government of Japan, statement................................... 176
Grocery Manufacturers Association, Mary Sophos, letter........... 178
Hanson Aggregates, San Diego, CA, Mark T. Long, letter........... 179
Hart's Manufacturing Committee, Collierville, TN, Thomas W. Hart,
letter......................................................... 180
Higdon Furniture Co., Quincy, FL, Warren Higdon III, letter...... 180
Hilex Poly Co., LLC, Hartsville, SC, David C. Booher, letter..... 181
Home Decorators Collection, Inc., Hazelwood, MO, Thomas K.
Wilcher, letter................................................ 182
Honeyland, Inc., Wolf Point, MT, Harry Rodenberg, statement...... 183
Idaho Truss & Component Co., Meridian, ID, Kendall R. Hoyd,
letter......................................................... 183
Independent Steelworkers Union, Weirton, WV, Mark Glyptis, letter 184
International Dynasty Corporation, Houston, TX, Sophie Chen,
letter......................................................... 186
International Foodservice Distributors Association, Falls Church,
VA, David French, letter....................................... 187
Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment, Tokyo, Japan,
Osamu Morimoto, letter and attachment.......................... 187
Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Manhattan, KS, Doran Junk, letter 193
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Peoria, IL, David L.
Cheek, letter.................................................. 195
Kincaid Furniture Company, Inc., Hudson, NC, Steven M. Kincaid,
letter......................................................... 195
Koyo Corporation of USA, Westlake, OH, Thomas Peacock, letter.... 196
L'Union des Industries de la Communaute Europenne, Brussels,
Belgium, Philippe De Buck, statement and attachment............ 198
Lafarge North America, Herndon, VA, Sherry E. Peske, letter...... 199
Lehigh Cement Company, Allentown, PA, Jeffry Brozyna, letter..... 200
Libbey Inc., Toledo, OH, Susan Allene Kovach, letter............. 201
Littfin Lumber Company, Bob Mochinski, Winsted, Minnesota, letter 202
Los Angeles Cold Storage Company, Los Angeles, CA, Larry Rauch,
letter......................................................... 203
Lumi-Lite Candle Co., Inc., Norwich, OH, George Pappas Sr.,
letter......................................................... 204
Marine Management Insurance Brokers, Inc., Park City, UT, Curtis
W. Keyes, letter............................................... 205
Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc., Kahului, HI, Warren A.
Suzuki, letter................................................. 206
Members of the Minnesota Legislature Representing Minnesota's
``Iron Range,'' Saint Paul, MN, Tom Bakk, Tom Saxhaug, David
Tomassoni, Irv Anderson, David Dill, Tom Rukavina, Tony
Sertich, and Loren Solberg, joint statement.................... 207
Mexinox USA, Inc., Bannockburn, IL, Adolfo Acevedo, letter....... 208
Michelin North America, Greenville, SC, Martin Wardle, letter.... 208
Michels and Company, Lynwood, CA, Irwin Allen, letter............ 209
Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, Roderic W. Lewis, letter..... 209
MJ Wood Products, Inc., Morrisville, VT, Geoffrey Jackson, letter 211
Mobel, Inc., Ferdinand, IN, Paul A. Ruhe, letter................. 212
H.R. 1121--Continued
Montana Cattlemen's Association, Billings, MT, Brett DeBruycker,
letter......................................................... 213
Moosehead Manufacturing Company, Monson, ME, John E. Wentworth,
letter......................................................... 215
Mountain Avenue Bees, Inc., Hesperia, CA, Ron Spears, letter..... 216
National Cement Company of California, Encino, CA, Donald J.
Unmacht Jr., letter............................................ 216
National Confectioners Association and Chocolate Manufactures
Association, Vienna, Virginia, Lawrence T. Graham and Lynn
Bragg, joint statement......................................... 217
National Fisheries Institute, McLean, VA, John Connelly, letter.. 220
National Retail Federation, statement............................ 221
Neenah Foundry Company, Neenah, WI, Timothy J. Koller, letter.... 226
North American Stainless, Ghent, KY, Mary Jean Riley, letter..... 226
NSK Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI, Tom Rouse, letter................ 227
Oregon Truss Co., Inc., Salem, OR, David W. Hughes, statement.... 229
Pacamor Kubar Bearings, Troy, NY, Augustine J. Sperrazza Jr.,
letter......................................................... 230
Plum Building Systems Inc., Osceola, IA, Richard Parrino, letter. 232
Precision Metalforming Association, Independence, OH, William E.
Gaskin, letter and attachment.................................. 233
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of
America, Billings, MT, Leo R. McDonnell, letter................ 236
Raymour & Flanigan, Neil Goldberg, Liverpool, New York, letter... 237
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 238
Rich Products Corporation, Buffalo, NY, Robert E. Rich Jr.,
letter......................................................... 240
Rich-seapak Corporation, Saint Simons Island, GA, Jack C.
Kilgore, letter................................................ 241
Rinker Materials, West Palm Beach, FL, Eddie Allsopp, Karl
Watson, letter................................................. 242
Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Los Angeles, CA,
John A. Sandberg, Phillip Sweet, and Michael Bagwell, joint
letter......................................................... 243
Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., New York, NY, Max F. Schutzman,
letter......................................................... 244
Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., Baldwinville, MA,
George Davenport Jones III..................................... 248
Shelter Systems Limited, Westminster, MD, Joseph Dwight Hikel,
statement...................................................... 248
Sioux Honey Association, Sioux City, IA, David Barclay Allibone,
letter......................................................... 250
Southern Shrimp Alliance, Tarpon Springs, FL, Deborah Long,
statement...................................................... 250
Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Jack W. Shilling,
statement...................................................... 251
Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, letter.................. 253
Stock Building Supply, Dayton, OH, Christopher Paulhus, statement 256
Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Kennett Square, PA, Gary F. Caligiuri,
letter......................................................... 258
Superbag Corporation, Houston, TX, Isaac Bazbaz, letter.......... 259
Tampa Maid Foods, Inc., Lakeland, FL, Edward B. Smith, letter.... 259
Texas Industries, Dallas, TX, Mel G. Brekhus, letter............. 260
The Bombay Company, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, Michael J.
Veitenheimer, letter........................................... 261
The Food Products Association, Scott Riehl, statement............ 262
The Garlic Company, Bakersfield, CA, Joe Lane and John Layous,
letter......................................................... 264
The Home Depot, Kent Knutson, letter............................. 266
The NTN Companies, Mt. Prospect, IL, Kazumune V. Kano, letter.... 266
Titan America, Coral Springs, FL, Deerfield Beach, FL, Orlando
Vazquez, Timothy Kuebler, and Robert A. Sells, joint letter.... 268
Titan America, LLC, Norfolk, VA, Russell A. Fink, letter......... 269
Trade Masters, LLC, Peachtree City, GA, Ron O'Dell, letter....... 270
U.S. Dairy Export Council, Arlington, VA, Thomas M. Suber,
statement...................................................... 271
U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Corp., Hialeah, FL, Alex L.
DeBogory, letter............................................... 271
Union de Empresas Siderurgicas, Madrid, Spain, Juan Ignacio
Bartolome, letter.............................................. 272
Union of Italian Pasta Manufacturers, Rome, Italy, Mario Rummo,
letter......................................................... 273
Union of Organizations of Manufacturers of Pasta Products of the
E.U., Rome, Italy, Mario Rummo, letter......................... 274
United States Steel Corporation, Terrence D. Straub, letter...... 275
United Steelworkers, William J. Klinefelter, Pittsburgh, PA,
letter......................................................... 275
Up Country, Inc., Cumming, GA, Leslie W. Thompson, letter........ 276
U.S. Magnesium LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, Lee R. Brown, letter..... 278
Vanguard Plastics, Farmers Branch, TX, William C. Seanor, joint
letter......................................................... 279
Vaughan Furniture Company, Inc., Galax, VA, William B. Vaughan,
letter......................................................... 280
Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Corporation, Galax, VA, John D. Bassett
IV, letter..................................................... 281
Vessey and Company, Inc., El Centro, CA, Mark Allegranza,
statement...................................................... 282
H.R. 1121--Continued
WCI Steel, Inc., Warren, OH, Patrick G. Tatom, letter............ 283
Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., Galax, VA, Lee H. Houston,
Robert Kirby, John Mcghee, and Barry Branscome, joint letter...
Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., John Mcghee, Galax, VA, joint
letter......................................................... 284
Wellman, Inc., Fort Mill, SC, Thomas M. Duff, letter............. 285
Wieland Metals, Inc., Wheeling, IL, Markus Schuler, letter....... 286
Will & Baumer, Inc., Syracuse, NY, Marshall John Ciccone, letter. 287
WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle, Hans-Reiner Haeussler, and
Wilfried Held, joint letter.................................... 287
Wood Truss Council of America, Madison, WI, Kendall Hoyd and Sean
Shields, letter................................................ 288
H.R. 1202:
Johnson Controls, Inc., Plymouth, MI, William J. Kohler, letter.. 290
H.R. 1221:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 290
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 292
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 293
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 295
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 297
H.R. 1230:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 298
Kellwood Company, Chesterfield, MO, Wendy Wieland, letter........ 300
H.R. 1274:
Solvay Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX, Richard L. Hogan, letter.... 300
H.R. 1336:
Cymer,Inc., San Diego, CA, Albert P. Cefalo, letter.............. 301
Semi, Maggie Hershey, Washington, DC, letter..................... 202
H.R. 1391: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1392: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1407:
Wire Rod Producers Coalition, Paul C. Rosenthal, statement....... 302
H.R. 1444: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1464: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1465: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1466: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1534:
Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products
Manufacturers, George Leroy Bowen III, letter.................. 304
Coats & Clark, Albany, GA, Audie McDearis, letter................ 305
Culp Inc., Burlington, NC, Jerald Stephen Owens, joint letter.... 305
Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa, Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, DC,
letter......................................................... 306
National Council of Textile Organizations, Missy J. Branson,
letter......................................................... 307
National Spinning Co., Inc., Washington, NC, James Chesnutt,
letter......................................................... 307
Patrick, Gilbert Hambright, Patrick Yarns, Kings Mountain, NC,
letter......................................................... 308
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A.
Liebenow, letter............................................... 309
Sterling Fibers, Pace, FL, Paul Saunders, statement.............. 309
H.R. 1535:
Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products
Manufacturers, George Leroy Bowen III, letter.................. 310
Coats & Clark, Albany, GA, Audie McDearis, letter................ 310
Culp Inc., Burlington, NC, Jerald Stephen Owens, joint letter.... 311
Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa, Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, DC,
letter......................................................... 311
National Council of Textile Organizations, Missy J. Branson,
letter......................................................... 312
National Spinning Co., Inc., Washington, NC, James Chesnutt,
letter......................................................... 313
Patrick, Gilbert Hambright, Patrick Yarns, Kings Mountain, NC,
letter......................................................... 314
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A.
Liebenow, letter............................................... 314
Sterling Fibers, Pace, FL, Paul Saunders, statement.............. 315
H.R. 1536:
Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products
Manufacturers, George Leroy Bowen III, letter.................. 315
Coats & Clark, Albany, GA, Audie McDearis, letter................ 316
H.R. 1536--Continued
Culp Inc., Burlington, NC, Jerald Stephen Owens, joint letter.... 316
Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa, Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, DC,
letter......................................................... 317
H.R. 1536--Continued
National Council of Textile Organizations, Missy J. Branson,
letter......................................................... 318
National Spinning Co., Inc., Washington, NC, James Chesnutt,
letter......................................................... 318
Patrick, Gilbert Hambright, Patrick Yarns, Kings Mountain, NC,
letter......................................................... 319
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A.
Liebenow, letter............................................... 320
Sterling Fibers, Pace, FL, Paul Saunders, statement.............. 320
H.R. 1537: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1609: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1610: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1698: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1699: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1700: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1701: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1702: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1715:
LANXESS Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Jamie B. Schaeffer, letter.. 321
PPG Industries, Inc., Monroeville, PA, Michael H. McGarry, letter 321
H.R. 1724: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1725: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1726: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1727: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1732:
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, David Newman, letter and
attachment..................................................... 322
H.R. 1733:
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, David Newman, letter and
attachment..................................................... 324
H.R. 1734:
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, David Newman, letter and
attachment..................................................... 325
H.R. 1752: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1775: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1777: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1778: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1779: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1780: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1781: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1782:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter.... 327
H.R. 1783: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1784: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1785: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1786: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1787: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1788: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1799: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1802:
Montana Cattleman's Association, Billings, MT, Brett DeBruycker,
letter......................................................... 328
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of
America, Billings, MT, Leo R. McDonnell, letter................ 330
H.R. 1813: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1824: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1826: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1827: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1828: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1829: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1830: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1831: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1832: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1833: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1838: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1839: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1840: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1841: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1842: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1843: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1844: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1845: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1846: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1848: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1851: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1854: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1855: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1856: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1857: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1858: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1877:
Continental AG, Auburn Hills, MI, Philip M. Headley, letter...... 330
H.R. 1878: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1880: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1881: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1882: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1883: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1884: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1885: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1886: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1887: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1888: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1889: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1890: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1891: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1892: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1893: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1894: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1895: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1896: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1897: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1899: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1900: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1901: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1903: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1904: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1906: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1907: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1908: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1909: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1910: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1911: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1913: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1914:
Cherry Marketing Institute, Dewitt, MI, Philip J. Korson II...... 331
H.R. 1915: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1916: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1917: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1918: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1919: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1920: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1921: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1922: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1923: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1924: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1925: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1926: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1927: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1928: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1934:
Tarkett, Inc., Houston, TX, Mannington Mills, Inc., Salem, NJ,
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Lancaster, PA, Congoleum
Corp., Mercerville, NJ, Edward F. Gerwin, Jr., joint statement. 332
H.R. 1935: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1936: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1937: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1938: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1941: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1944: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1945:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 334
Brooks Brothers, Inc., New York, NY, Joe Dixon, letter........... 335
Buhler Quality Yarns Corporation, Jefferson, GA, W. Bieri, letter 336
Gitman Brothers, New York, NY, John Minahan III, letter.......... 337
National Council of Textile Organizations, Cass Johnson, letter.. 338
Supima, Phoenix, AZ, Jesse W. Curlee, letter..................... 339
H.R. 1947:
HoMedics, Commerce Township, MI, Renee Chiuchiarelli, letter..... 340
H.R. 1948:
HoMedics, Commerce Township, MI, Renee Chiuchiarelli, letter..... 341
H.R. 1949:
HoMedics, Commerce Township, MI, Renee Chiuchiarelli, letter..... 342
National Candle Association, Randolph Stayin, Washington, DC,
letter......................................................... 343
H.R. 1959: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1962: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1963: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1964: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1965: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1966: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1967: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1968: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1969: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1970: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1971: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1976: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1978: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1979: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1990: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1991: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1992: No comments submitted.
H.R. 1997: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2003:
Cheese Importers Association of America, Inc., New York, NY,
Thomas G. Toto, letter......................................... 344
International Dairy Foods Association, Connie Tipton, letter..... 344
Lactalis American Group, Inc., Buffalo, NY, Erick Boutry, letter. 345
The Tipton Group, E. Linwood Tipton, letter...................... 346
H.R. 2009: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2010: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2015:
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Milwaukee, WI, Wayne T. Curtin,
letter......................................................... 347
H.R. 2016: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2019: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2020: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2021: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2022: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2023: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2024: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2025: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2026: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2027: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2028: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2029: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2030: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2031: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2032: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2033: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2056:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter.... 348
H.R. 2077: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2078: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2079: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2080: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2081: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2082: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2083: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2084: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2085: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2086: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2091: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2093: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2094: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2095: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2096:
Beaver Manufacturing Company, Mansfield, GA, William D. Loeble,
letter......................................................... 349
H.R. 2114: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2115: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2116: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2117:
Clariant Corporation, Martin, SC, Andrew Zamoyski, letter........ 350
H.R. 2118: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2119:
Sun Chemical Corp., Cincinnati, OH, Edwin B. Faulkner, letter.... 350
H.R. 2120: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2128: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2135: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2136: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2137: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2138: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2139: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2140: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2141: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2142: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2143: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2144: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2145:
Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, OH, David L. Cowen, letter...... 350
H.R. 2146:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter.... 350
H.R. 2147:
R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, CT, Joseph Denaro, letter
and attachment................................................. 351
H.R. 2148: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2149: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2150: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2151:
Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, OH, David L. Cowen, letter...... 352
H.R. 2152:
R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, CT, Joseph Denaro, letter
and attachment................................................. 353
H.R. 2153: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2154: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2155: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2156: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2157: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2158: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2159: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2160: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2161: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2162: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2163: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2164: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2165: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2166: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2167: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2168: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2169: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2170: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2171: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2172:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter.... 354
H.R. 2173: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2175: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2179:
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc., Simeon M. Kriesberg, joint
letter......................................................... 355
H.R. 2198: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2212: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2213: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2214: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2215: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2220: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2221:
Velsicol Chemical Corporation, Rosemont, IL, Elizabeth Anne
Karkula, letter................................................ 356
H.R. 2222: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2223: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2224: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2225: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2226:
Celanese, Bob Carpenter, letter.................................. 357
Lanxess Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Jamie B. Schaeffer, letter.. 358
H.R. 2227: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2228: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2241: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2242: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2243: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2244: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2245: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2246: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2252: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2253: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2254: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2255: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2256: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2260: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2261: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2262: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2263: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2264: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2265:
Sybron Chermicals Inc., Burmingham, NJ, Ralf Matt, statement..... 358
H.R. 2266:
Purolite Company, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Don Brodie, letter............ 358
Sybron Chermicals Inc., Burmingham, NJ, Ralf Matt, statement..... 359
H.R. 2267: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2268: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2269: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2270: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2271: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2272: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2273: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2274: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2275: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2276: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2277: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2278: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2279: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2280: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2281: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2282: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2285:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement..................... 359
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement 360
H.R. 2286:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement..................... 360
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement 361
H.R. 2287:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement..................... 361
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement 362
H.R. 2288:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement..................... 363
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement 363
H.R. 2289:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement..................... 364
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement 365
H.R. 2302: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2303: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2309: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2310: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2311: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2312: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2313: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2314: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2315: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2316: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2336: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2371: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2372: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2373: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2374: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2375: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2377: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2380:
Oscient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Waltham, MA, Stephen Cohen,
letter......................................................... 365
H.R. 2381: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2382: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2394: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2395: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2396: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2397: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2402: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2403: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2404: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2405: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2406: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2424: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2430: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2431: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2432: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2433: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2434: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2435: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2436: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2437: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2438: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2439: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2440: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2441: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2442: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2443: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2444: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2445: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2446: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2447: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2448: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2449: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2450: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2451: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2452: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2453: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2454: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2459: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2460: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2461: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2462: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2463: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2464: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2465: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2466: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2467: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2468: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2469:
Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, Roderic W. Lewis, statement.. 366
H.R. 2473:
AK Steel Corporation, Middletown, Ohio, James L. Wainscott,
letter......................................................... 367
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Pittsburgh, PA, Jon D.
Walton, statement.............................................. 368
H.R. 2473--Continued
American Iron and Steel Institute, Jennifer L. Diggins, statement 369
Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Randolph J. Stayin, Esq., letter......... 370
California Minnesota Honey Farms, Eagle Bend, MN, Jeff Anderson.. 371
California Cut Flower Commission, Watsonville, CA, Lee Murphy,
letter......................................................... 372
Cattle Producers of Washington, Soap Lake, Washington, Chad
Henneman, letter............................................... 374
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, David A. Hartquist, letter. 375
Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Joseph Mayer, letter....... 376
Council Tool Company, Inc., Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina, John
M. Council III, letter......................................... 377
Floral Trade Council, Ovid, Michigan, William R. Carlson, letter. 378
Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., Tampa, FL, Phillip E. Casey, letter..... 380
Independent Steelworkers Union, Weirton, West Virginia, Mark
Glyptis, letter................................................ 381
Japan, Government of, Ryozo Kato, Ambassador, statement.......... 382
Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Manhattan, Kansas, Doran Junk,
letter......................................................... 383
Libbey Inc., Toledo, Ohio, Susan Allene Kovach, letter........... 385
Montana Cattlemen's Association, Billings, Montana, Brett
DeBruycker, letter............................................. 387
Pacamor Kubar Bearings, Troy, NY, Augustine J. Sperrazza Jr.,
letter......................................................... 388
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of
America, Billings, Montana, Leo R. McDonnell, letter........... 390
Sioux Honey Association, Sioux City, Iowa, David Allibone, letter 391
Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, letter.................. 392
The Garlic Company, Bakersfield, CA, Joe Lane and John Layous,
letter......................................................... 395
United States Steel Corporation, Terrence D. Straub, letter...... 397
United Steelworkers, William J. Klinefelter, Pittsburgh, PA,
letter......................................................... 397
Wellman, Inc., Fort Mill, South Carolina, Thomas M. Duff, letter. 398
H.R. 2477:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 399
H.R. 2478:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 400
H.R. 2479:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 402
H.R. 2480: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2481: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2482: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2483: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2492: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2493: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2494: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2495: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2496: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2497: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2501: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2502: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2503: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2504: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2505: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2506: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2507: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2522: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2523: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2524: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2532: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2535: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2536: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2537:
Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Dan Packer, letter........... 403
H.R. 2538: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2539: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2540: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2542: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2543: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2544: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2545: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2546: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2547: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2548: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2549:
Sun Chemical Corp., Cincinnati, OH, Edwin B. Faulkner, letter.... 403
H.R. 2550: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2551: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2552: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2556:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 404
H.R. 2557:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 405
H.R. 2573:
Milliken & Company, Joe Salley, letter........................... 407
H.R. 2575: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2576: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2577: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2578: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2579: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2580: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2581: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2582: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2583: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2584: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2585: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2586: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2589:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 413
Harodite Industries, Inc., Danville, VA, Dewey M. Rutledge Jr.,
letter......................................................... 415
H.R. 2590:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 415
Harodite Industries, Inc., Danville, VA, Dewey M. Rutledge Jr.,
letter......................................................... 417
H.R. 2591:
Cheraw Yarn Mills, Cheraw, South Carolina, William M. Malloy,
Jr., letter.................................................... 418
National Council of Textile Organizations, Cass Johnson, letter.. 418
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A.
Liebenow, letter............................................... 420
Richmond Yarns, Inc., Rockingham, NC, Kenneth L. Goodman, Jr.,
letter......................................................... 421
H.R. 2596:
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Nancy Noonan,
Washington, DC, letter......................................... 422
H.R. 2597:
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Nancy Noonan,
Washington, DC, letter......................................... 423
H.R. 2598:
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Nancy Noonan,
Washington, DC, letter......................................... 424
H.R. 2602: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2603: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2604: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2605: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2606: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2607: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2608: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2609: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2610: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2611: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2612: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2613: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2614: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2615: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2624:
MT Picture Display Corp. of America, Troy, Ohio, letter.......... 425
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, New Jersey, David Newman,
letter......................................................... 426
H.R. 2632: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2675: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2676: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2677: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2678: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2696: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2697: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2698: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2699: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2700: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2701: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2702: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2703: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2704: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2705: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2706: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2707: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2708: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2709: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2710: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2711: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2712: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2713: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2714: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2764: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2765: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2766: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2767: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2768: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2769: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2770: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2771: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2772: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2773: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2774: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2775: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2776: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2777: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2781: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2782: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2783: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2784: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2785: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2806: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2809: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2810: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2816:
Association of Food Industries, Inc., Neptune, New Jersey,
Jeffrey S. Levin, letter....................................... 426
Del Monte Foods/StarKist Brands, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Jeff
Watters, statement............................................. 427
H.R. 2817:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter.. 428
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 429
H.R. 2818:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter.. 430
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 431
H.R. 2819:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter.. 432
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 433
H.R. 2820:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter.. 434
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 435
H.R. 2821:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter.. 436
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 437
H.R. 2825: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2833:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter.... 438
H.R. 2836: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2837: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2838: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2839: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2845: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2847: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2848: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2849: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2850: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2851: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2852: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2853: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2854: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2855: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2856:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachussets, Letter.. 439
H.R. 2879: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2880: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2881: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2882: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2883: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2884: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2885: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2886: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2887: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2888: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2889: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2890: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2896:
Grocery Manufacturers Association, Mary Sophos, letter........... 439
H.R. 2906: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2907: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2908: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2909: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2913: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2914: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2915: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2916: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2917: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2918: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2919: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2920: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2921: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2922: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2954:
Chemalloy Company, Inc., Bryn Mawr, PA, Anthony C. Demos, letter. 440
Embassy of South Africa, Barbara Masekela, letter................ 441
Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd., Nelspruit, South Africa,
Keith Saffy, letter............................................ 442
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Newfield, New Jersey,
Cheryl Ellsworth, letter....................................... 443
H.R. 2972: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2973: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2974: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2975: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2976: No comments submitted.
H.R. 2996:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 445
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 445
H.R. 2997:
Pan American Grain Co., Inc., Guaynabo, PR, Milton Rafael
Gonzalez, letter............................................... 446
Agramericas, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Kevin R. Deuel,
letter......................................................... 446
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 447
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 447
Lyondell Chemical Company, Houston, Texas, W. Norman Phillips,
letter......................................................... 448
The Connell Company, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, Grover
Connell, letter................................................ 448
H.R. 2998:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 449
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter........... 450
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, Texas, J.W. Brown, letter. 450
H.R. 2999:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, Texas, Bobby Waid, letter 451
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter........... 451
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 451
H.R. 3001:
BP America, Inc., Warrenville, IL, Timothy W. Van Oost, letter... 452
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 452
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter........... 453
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 453
H.R. 3002:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 453
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 454
Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., Guaynabo, PR, Milton
R. Gonzalez, letter............................................ 454
The Connell Company, Berkeley Heights, NJ, Grover Connell, letter 455
H.R. 3015: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3016: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3023: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3024: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3025: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3026: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3027: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3028: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3029: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3030: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3033:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 455
H.R. 3066:
Deere & Company, Moline, IL, Thomas K. Jarrett, letter........... 457
H.R. 3067:
Deere & Company, Moline, IL, Thomas K. Jarrett, letter........... 458
Ponsse North America Inc., Rhinelander, WI, Ruth H. Nelson,
letter and attachment.......................................... 459
H.R. 3089: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3090: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3091: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3092: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3093: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3105: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3106: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3112:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 462
H.R. 3113:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 464
H.R. 3114:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 465
H.R. 3115:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 466
H.R. 3116:
Global Home Products, Westerville, OH, George E. Hamilton, letter 468
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 470
H.R. 3117:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 472
H.R. 3118:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 473
H.R. 3119: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3120: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3126: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3176:
United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel,
New York, NY, Laura E. Jones, letter........................... 474
H.R. 3210: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3211: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3212: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3213: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3214: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3215: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3216: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3217: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3218: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3219: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3220: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3221: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3222: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3223: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3224: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3225: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3226: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3227: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3228: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3229: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3230: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3231: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3232: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3233: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3234: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3235: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3236: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3237: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3238: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3239: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3240: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3241: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3242: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3243: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3244: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3245: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3246: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3247: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3257: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3258: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3285: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3286: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3287:
Clariant Corporation, Dan Packer, Coventry, RI, letter........... 476
H.R. 3288: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3289:
Clariant Corporation, Dan Packer, Coventry, RI, letter........... 476
H.R. 3290: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3291: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3292: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3293: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3294: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3295: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3303:
ATF, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL, Don Cunningham, letter............... 477
Federal Screw Works, St. Clair Shores, MI, John O'Brien, letter.. 477
Illinois Tool Works Inc., Glenview, Illinois, Michael J. Lynch,
letter......................................................... 478
Industrial Fasteners Institute, Cleveland, OH, Rob J. Harris,
letter......................................................... 478
MacLean-Fogg Company, Mundelein, IL, Timothy Taylor, letter...... 479
Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp., Columbia Station, OH, Raymond L.
Gurnick, letter................................................ 480
Wire Rod Producers Coalition, Paul C. Rosenthal, statement....... 480
H.R. 3308:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 482
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 484
H.R. 3309:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 485
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 487
H.R. 3310:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 488
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 490
H.R. 3311:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 491
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 493
H.R. 3340: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3341: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3342: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3343: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3346: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3353:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 495
Chevron USA, Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter............. 495
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 495
H.R. 3354:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 496
Chevron USA, Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter............. 496
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 497
H.R. 3355:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 497
Chevron USA, Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter............. 497
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 498
H.R. 3356:
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 498
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 499
H.R. 3357:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter... 499
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 499
H.R. 3363:
American Association of Exporters & Importers, Hallock Northcott,
statement...................................................... 500
American Petroleum Institute, Michael Platner, letter............ 501
C.J. Holt & Co. Inc., Oradell, New Jersey, Edwin W. Van Ek,
letter......................................................... 502
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, Texas, Bobby Waid, letter 503
Comstock & Theakston, Inc., Oradell, NJ, William A. Hagedorn,
letter......................................................... 504
Customs Advisory Services, Inc., Atlanta, GA, George Keller,
letter......................................................... 505
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter 506
Florida Citrus Mutual, Lakeland, Florida, Andrew LaVigne, letter. 507
Joint Industry Group, Mary K. Alexander, letter.................. 509
The Ad Hoc Drawback Group, San Francisco, California, Neill F.
Stroth, Anne-Marie Bush, letter................................ 511
Veritrade International, Bellevue, WA, Anne-Marie Bush, letter... 513
H.R. 3371: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3386:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar,letter................................................ 515
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 516
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 518
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 519
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 521
H.R. 3387:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 522
H.R. 3387--Continued
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 524
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 525
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 526
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 528
H.R. 3388:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 530
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 531
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 533
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 534
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 536
H.R. 3389:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 537
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 539
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 540
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 541
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 543
H.R. 3390:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 545
H.R. 3391:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 546
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 548
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 549
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 551
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 553
H.R. 3392:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 554
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 555
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 557
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 558
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 560
H.R. 3393:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 561
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 563
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 564
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 566
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 568
H.R. 3394:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 569
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 570
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 572
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 573
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 575
H.R. 3395:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 576
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 578
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 579
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 581
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 583
H.R. 3414:
Meade Instruments Corporation, Peggy Clarke, letter.............. 584
H.R. 3415: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3416:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 586
National Retail Federation, Erik O. Autor, statement............. 587
H.R 3483:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 588
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 590
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 591
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 592
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 594
H.R. 3484:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 596
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 597
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 599
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 600
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 602
H.R. 3485:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 603
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 605
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 606
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 607
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 609
H.R. 3486:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 611
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 612
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 614
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 615
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 617
H.R. 3487:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 618
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 620
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 621
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 622
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 624
H.R. 3488:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 626
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 627
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 629
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 630
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 632
H.R. 3489:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 633
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 635
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 636
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 637
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 639
H.R. 3490:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 641
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 642
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 644
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 645
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 647
H.R. 3491:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen
E. Lamar, letter............................................... 648
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T.
Mangione, letter............................................... 650
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........ 651
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L.
Kennedy, letter................................................ 653
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter.................... 654
H.R. 3527: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3528: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3529: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3530: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3531: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3609: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3610: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3611: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3635: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3636: No comments submitted.
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
CONTACT: (202) 225-0649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2005
No. TR-3
Shaw Announces Request for
Written Comments on Technical Corrections to
U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty
Suspension Bills
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee is requesting written comments for the record from all
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
BACKGROUND:
On March 10, 2005, Chairman Shaw requested that all Members who
planned to introduce technical corrections and miscellaneous duty
suspension legislation do so by April 28, 2005. Chairman Shaw is now
requesting public comment on those bills listed below and is requesting
budget scoring estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The
deadline for the public to submit written comments to the Committee is
Friday, September 2, 2005. After the comment period, the Subcommittee
will review all comments and determine which bills should be included
in a miscellaneous trade package. The Subcommittee will consider the
extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively,
attract controversy, or are not administrable.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of
the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the
Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ``109th
Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http://
waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=17). Select the request
for written comments for which you would like to submit, and click on
the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the
record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions, completing
all informational forms and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an
email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your
interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to
the email and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document,
in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close
of business Friday, September 2, 2005. Finally, please note that due to
the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse
sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions,
or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages,
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/ororganizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental
sheet must accompany each submission listing the name, company,
address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
SUMMARY OF BILLS:
Duty Suspension or Reduction bills:
H.R. 53--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on chloroneb.
H.R. 178--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl
Ether.
H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture.
H.R. 521--A bill to impose tariff-rate quotas on certain casein and
milk protein concentrates.
H.R. 617--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-nitrobenzoic
acid (PNBA).
H.R. 636--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Allyl
Pentaerythritol (APE).
H.R. 637--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Butyl Ethyl
Propanediol (BEPD).
H.R. 638--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on BEPD70L.
H.R. 639--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Boltorn-1
(Bolt-1).
H.R. 640--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Boltorn-2
(Bolt-2).
H.R. 641--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclic TMP
Formal (CTF).
H.R. 642--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DiTMP.
H.R. 643--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Polyol DPP
(DPP).
H.R. 644--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Hydroxypivalic
Acid (HPA).
H.R. 645--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMPDE.
H.R. 646--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMPME.
H.R. 647--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMP Oxetane
(TMPO).
H.R. 648--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMPO Ethoxylate
(TMPOE).
H.R. 707--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States with respect to rattan webbing.
H.R. 1068--A bill to maintain and expand the steel import licensing
and monitoring program.
H.R. 1115--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to clarify the tariff rate for certain mechanics' gloves.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
H.R. 1202--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on unidirectional
(cardioid) electret condenser microphone modules for use in motor
vehicles.
H.R. 1221--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber
or plastic footwear.
H.R. 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents
imported into the United States.
H.R. 1274--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on amyl-
anthraquinone.
H.R. 1336--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to clairfy the classification of laser light sources for
semiconductor manufacturing.
H.R. 1391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on allyl ureido
monomer.
H.R. 1392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on methacrylamido
etheleneurae monomer.
H.R. 1407--A bill to provide that certain wire rods shall not be
subject to any antidumping duty or countervailing duty order.
H.R. 1444--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
meatless frozen food products.
H.R. 1464--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by
vinegar or acetic acid.
H.R. 1465--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic
acid.
H.R. 1466--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by
vinegar or acetic acid.
H.R. 1534--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed, or otherwise
processed for spinning.
H.R. 1535--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on acrylic or
modacrylic synthetic filament tow.
H.R. 1536--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
synthetic staple fibers that are carded, combed, or otherwise processed
for spinning.
H.R. 1537--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
nitrocellulose.
H.R. 1609--A bill to reduce until December 31, 2008, the duty on
potassium sorbate.
H.R. 1610--A bill to reduce until December 31, 2008, the duty on
sorbic acid.
H.R. 1698--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers
preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.
H.R. 1699--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
pepperoncini prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic
acid.
H.R. 1700--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers
preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.
H.R. 1701--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
pepperoncini prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid in
concentrations at 0.5% or greater.
H.R. 1702--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
pepperoncini prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic
acid in concentrations less than 0.5%.
H.R. 1715--A bill to reduce until December 31, 2008, the duty on
PDCB (p-Dichlorobenzene).
H.R. 1724--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Asulam sodium salt.
H.R. 1725--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloral.
H.R. 1726--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Imidacloprid
Technical.
H.R. 1727--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Triadimefon.
H.R. 1732--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Liquid Crystal
Device (LCD) panel assemblies for use in LCD projection type
televisions.
H.R. 1733--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns
for high definition cathode ray tubes (CRTs).
H.R. 1734--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Liquid Crystal
Device (LCD) panel assemblies for use in LCD direct view televisions.
H.R. 1752--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Polyethylene
HE2591.
H.R. 1775--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Thiacloprid.
H.R. 1777--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrimethanil.
H.R. 1778--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Foramsulfuron.
H.R. 1779--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Fenamidone.
H.R. 1780--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclanilide
Technical.
H.R. 1781--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on para-
Benzoquinone.
H.R. 1782--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on palmitic acid.
H.R. 1783--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Anisidine.
H.R. 1784--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tetrakis.
H.R. 1785--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-Xylidine.
H.R. 1786--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
CroTonaldehyde.
H.R. 1787--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on t-Butyl
acrylate.
H.R. 1788--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on propyl
gallate.
H.R. 1799--A bill to extend the duty suspension on ORGASOL
polyamide powders.
H.R. 1802--A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to
the marking of imported live bovine animals.
H.R. 1813--A bill to require the payment of interest on amounts
owed by the United States pursuant to the reliquidation of certain
entries under the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 and the
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004.
H.R. 1824--A bill to provide for the duty-free entry of certain
tramway cars and associated spare parts for use by the city of
Portland, Oregon.
H.R. 1826--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
Chlorobenzyl chloride.
H.R. 1827--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
(Z)-(1RS,3RS)-3-(2-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
imethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid.
H.R. 1828--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
(S)-Alpha-Hydroxy-3-phenoxybenzeneacetonitrile.
H.R. 1829--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Butanedioic
acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-1-
piperidineethanol.
H.R. 1830--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 3-amino-2-
(sulfato-ethyl sulfonyl) ethyl benzamide.
H.R. 1831--A bill to extend the duty suspension on MUB 738 INT.
H.R. 1832--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 5-amino-N-(2-
hydroxyethyl)-2,3-xylenesulfonamide.
H.R. 1833--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of
1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-triamine,N,N-[1,2-ethane-diyl-bis [ [ [4,6-bis-
[butyl (1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2-yl]
imino]-3,1-propanediyl] ] bis[N,N-dibutyl-N,N-bis(1,2,2,6,6-
pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)- and Butanedioic acid, dimethylester polymer
with 4-hyroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-1-piperdine ethanol.
H.R. 1838--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3-Cyclohexene-
1-carboxylic acid, 6-[(di-2-propenylamino)carbonyl]-,(1R,6R)-rel-,
reaction products with pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrefluoroethylene
telomer, ammonium salt.
H.R. 1839--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Glycine, N,N-
Bis[2-hydroxy-3-(2-propenyloxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt, reaction
products with ammonium hydroxide and pentafluoroiodoethane-
tetrafluoroethylyene telomer.
H.R. 1840--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5,5-bis[(y,w-
perfluoroC4-20alkylthio)methyl]-2-hydroxy-2-oxo -1,3,2-
dioxaphosphorinane, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4-
20alkylthio)methyl]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, di-ammonium salt and
Di-[2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4-20alkylthio)methyl]]-3-hydroxy proply
phosphate, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4-
20alkylthio)methyl]-1,3-di-(dihydro genphosphate)-propane, tetra-
ammonium salt.
H.R. 1841--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1(3H)-
Isobenzofuranone, 3,3-bis(2-methyl-1-octyl-1H-indol-3-yl).
H.R. 1842--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of
Poly[[6-[(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4
diyl][(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-exanediy [(2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]]) and Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl)sebaceate.
H.R. 1843--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MCPA.
H.R. 1844--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bronate
Advanced.
H.R. 1845--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil
Octanoate Tech.
H.R. 1846--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil
MEO.
H.R. 1848--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bitumen-coated polyethylene sleeves specifically designed to protect
in-ground wood posts.
H.R. 1851--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nylon
woolpacks used to package wool.
H.R. 1854--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on magnesium zinc
aluminum hydroxide carbonate hydrate.
H.R. 1855--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
magnesium aluminum hydroxide carbonate hydrate.
H.R. 1856--A bill to extend the temporary duty suspension on C12-18
Alkenes.
H.R. 1857--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
polytetramethylene ether glycol.
H.R. 1858--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
cis-3-Hexen-1-ol.
H.R. 1877--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on hydraulic
control units.
H.R. 1878--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on shield asy-
steering gear.
H.R. 1880--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-
Dichloroaniline.
H.R. 1881--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Acetylbutyrolactone.
H.R. 1882--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Alkylketone.
H.R. 1883--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Cyfluthrin
(Baythroid).
H.R. 1884--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Beta-
cyfluthrin.
H.R. 1885--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin.
H.R. 1886--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopropane-
1,1-dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester.
H.R. 1887--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Spiroxamine.
H.R. 1888--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Spiromesifen.
H.R. 1889--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Ethoprop.
H.R. 1890--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Propiconazole.
H.R. 1891--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-
Chlorobenzaldehyde.
H.R. 1892--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Oxadiazon.
H.R. 1893--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
Chlorobenzyl chloride.
H.R. 1894--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on NaHP.
H.R. 1895--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Iprodione.
H.R. 1896--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Fosetyl-Al.
H.R. 1897--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Flufenacet (FOE Hydroxy).
H.R. 1899--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphorus
Thiochloride.
H.R. 1900--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Methanol, sodium salt.
H.R. 1901--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on
Trifloxystrobin.
H.R. 1903--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on phosphoric
acid, lanthanum salt, cerium terbium-doped.
H.R. 1904--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on lutetium
oxide.
H.R. 1906--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on ACM.
H.R. 1907--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin.
H.R. 1908--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Thidiazuron.
H.R. 1909--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Flutolanil.
H.R. 1910--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Resmethrin.
H.R. 1911--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Clothianidin.
H.R. 1913--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ACRYPET UT100.
H.R. 1914--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to provide that the calculation of the duty imposed on
imported cherries that are provisionally preserved does not include the
weight of the preservative materials of the cherries.
H.R. 1915--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on diethyl ketone.
H.R. 1916--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Amino-1-
[2,6-dichloro-4- (tri fluoro methyl)phenyl]-4-[(1R,S)-(tri
fluoromethyl)-sulfiny] -1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile.
H.R. 1917--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,3-
Pyridinedicarboxylic acid.
H.R. 1918--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 80% 2,3-
Dimethylbutylnitrile and 20% toluene.
H.R. 1919--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,3-
Quinolinedicarboxylic acid.
H.R. 1920--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-
Chlorophenylglycine.
H.R. 1921--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,5-
Difluoroaniline.
H.R. 1922--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Dibromo-5-
dimethyl-hydantoin.
H.R. 1923--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on booster and
master cyl asy-brake.
H.R. 1924--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain
transaxles.
H.R. 1925--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on converter asy.
H.R. 1926--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on module and
bracket asy-power steering.
H.R. 1927--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on unit asy-
battery hi volt.
H.R. 1928--A bill to allow the entry of certain United States-
origin defense articles into bonded warehouses and foreign-trade zones.
H.R. 1934--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain vinyl
chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers.
H.R. 1935--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Clomazone.
H.R. 1936--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Flonicamid.
H.R. 1937--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bifenthrin.
H.R. 1938--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloropivaloyl
Chloride.
H.R. 1941--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on triethylene
glycol bis[3-(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methyl phenyl)propionate].
H.R. 1944--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain
articles of natural cork.
H.R. 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1947--A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain
entries of soundspa clock radios.
H.R. 1948--A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain
entries of aquascape relaxation bubble lights.
H.R. 1949--A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain
entries of candles.
H.R. 1959--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic
acid.
H.R. 1962--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
cyclopentanone.
H.R. 1963--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Mesotrione
Technical.
H.R. 1964--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Malonic Acid-
Dinitrile 50% NMP.
H.R. 1965--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations
of NOA 466510.
H.R. 1966--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DEMBB
Distilled-ISO Tank.
H.R. 1967--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Acid black
172.
H.R. 1968--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain
chemical mixture.
H.R. 1969--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on N,N'-hexane-
1,6-diylbis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl opionamide)).
H.R. 1970--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7,7'' - [(2-methyl-1,5-pentanediyl)
bis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) imino]] bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-
[(4-methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium sodium salt.
H.R. 1971--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid,5-[[4-chloro-6-[[3-[[8-[4-fluoro-6-
(methylphenylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-1-hydroxy-3,6- disulfo-2-
naphthalenyl]azo]-4-sulfophenyl],amino]-1,3,5-tria in-2-yl]amino]-4-
hydroxy-3-[(1-sulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo]-sodium salt.
H.R. 1976--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Gamma Methyl
Ionone.
H.R. 1978--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
acrylic fiber tow.
H.R. 1979--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
acrylic fiber tow.
H.R. 1990--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MKH 6561
Isocyanate.
H.R. 1991--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty with
respect to Diclofop methyl.
H.R. 1992--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on endosulfan.
H.R. 1997--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to clarify the article description relating to certain
monchrome glass envelopes, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2003--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to remove the 100 percent tariff imposed on Roquefort
cheese.
H.R. 2009--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tetraconazole.
H.R. 2010--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on M-Alcohol.
H.R. 2015--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
machines for use in the assembly of motorcycle wheels.
H.R. 2016--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on glass bulbs,
designed for sprinkler systems and other release devices, filled with
liquid that expands and breaks the bulb at a release temperature
predetermined by the manufacturer.
H.R. 2019--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pyriproxyfen.
H.R. 2020--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Uniconazole.
H.R. 2021--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acephate.
H.R. 2022--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bispyribac-
sodium.
H.R. 2023--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dinotefuran.
H.R. 2024--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Etoxazole.
H.R. 2025--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Fenpropathrin.
H.R. 2026--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bioallethrin.
H.R. 2027--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin.
H.R. 2028--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Esbioallethrin.
H.R. 2029--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Resmethrin.
H.R. 2030--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tetramethrin.
H.R. 2031--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tralemethrin.
H.R. 2032--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on flumiclorac
pentyl ester.
H.R. 2033--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Flumioxazin.
H.R. 2056--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid
distillate.
H.R. 2077--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Garenoxacin
mesylate.
H.R. 2078--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on butylated
hydroxyethylbenzene.
H.R. 2079--A bill to extend the temporary duty suspension on
Ezetimibe.
H.R. 2080--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Methidathion
Technical.
H.R. 2081--A bill to extend the duty suspension on difenoconazole.
H.R. 2082--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Lambda-
Cyhalothrin.
H.R. 2083--A bill to extend the duty suspension on cyprodinil.
H.R. 2084--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Wakil XL.
H.R. 2085--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Azoxystrobin
Technical.
H.R. 2086--A bill to extend the duty suspension on mucochloric
acid.
H.R. 2091--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxy-2-
methyldiphenylamine.
H.R. 2093--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Methylhydroquinone.
H.R. 2094--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl
chloride.
H.R. 2095--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-fluoro-2-
nitro benzene.
H.R. 2096--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain high tenacity rayon filament yarn.
H.R. 2114--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-propene-2-
methyl homopolymer.
H.R. 2115--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acronal-S-600.
H.R. 2116--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Lucirin TPO.
H.R. 2117--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Astacin Finish
PUM.
H.R. 2118--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Sokalan PG
IME.
H.R. 2119--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Paliotol
Yellow L 2140 HD.
H.R. 2120--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Lycopene 10%
25kg 4G 3.
H.R. 2128--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cosmetic bags
with a flexible outer surface of reinforced or laminated polyvinyl
chloride (PVC).
H.R. 2135--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of
methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosul
fonyl]benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron) and application adjuvants.
H.R. 2136--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Ethyl 4,5-
dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-1,2-oxazole-3-carboxylate (Isoxadifen-ethyl).
H.R. 2137--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Cyclopropyl-
4-(2-methylsulfonyl-4-trifluoromethylbenxoyl)i soxazole (Isoxaflutole).
H.R. 2138--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of
methyl 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-5-oxo-3-propoxy-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-y
l)carboxamidosulfonylbenzoate; sodium (4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-5-oxo-3-
propoxy-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylc arbonyl) (2-methoxy
carbonylphenylsulfonyl) azanide (Propoxycarbazone), methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-
(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) ureidosulfonyl[benzoate, sodium
salt (Mesosulfuron-methyl), and application adjuvants.
H.R. 2139--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Methyl 2-
[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-ylcarbamoyl)sulfamoyl]-G6a-(met
hanesulfonamido)-p-toluate whether or not mixed with application
adjuvants.
H.R. 2140--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of
N,N-dimethyl-2[3-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl ]-4-
formylaminobenzamide (Foramsulfuron), methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-
methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosul fonyl]benzoate, sodium salt
(Iodosulfuron), and application adjuvants.
H.R. 2141--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-Propanone,
2-methyl-1-[4- (methylthio)phenyl]-2-(4- morpholinyl)-(9cl).
H.R. 2142--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,6-
Hexanediamine, N,N'- bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinyl)-, polymer
with 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl- 1-
butanamine and N-butyl- 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinamine.
H.R. 2143--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Anthra[2,1,9-
mna]naphth[2,3-h]acridine-5,10,15(16H)-trione,3 -[(9,10-dihydro-9,10-
dioxo-1-anthracenyl)amino].
H.R. 2144--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cobaltate(1-),
bis[3-[[1-(3- chlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-(oxo-.kappa.O)-1H-
pyrazol-4-yl]azo-.kappa.N1[-4-. (hydroxy-.kappa.O)- benzenesulfonamid-
ato(2-)]-, sodium.
H.R. 2145--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMQ.
H.R. 2146--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-ADPA.
H.R. 2147--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkanox MB
(MBI).
H.R. 2148--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulcuren UPKA
1988.
H.R. 2149--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vullcanox 4010
NA/LG.
H.R. 2150--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkazon AFS/
LG.
H.R. 2151--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkacit MOZ/
LG and Vulkacit MOZ/SG.
H.R. 2152--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkanox ZMB-
2/C5.
H.R. 2153--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Anisic
Aldehyde.
H.R. 2154--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Methyl
Salicylate.
H.R. 2155--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2
Octanediol.
H.R. 2156--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 2, 2-Dimethyl-3-
(3-methylphenyl) propanal.
H.R. 2157--A bill to extend the duty suspension on p-
Methylacetophenone.
H.R. 2158--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Cyclohexadec-8-
en-l-one.
H.R. 2159--A bill to extend the duty suspension on methanol, sodium
salt.
H.R. 2160--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 2-
Phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulfonic acid.
H.R. 2161--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2
Pentanediol.
H.R. 2162--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Methyl
cinnamate.
H.R. 2163--A bill to extend the duty suspension on cyclohexanol.
H.R. 2164--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Thymol.
H.R. 2165--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Menthyl
anthranilate.
H.R. 2166--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Frescolat MGA.
H.R. 2167--A bill to extend the duty suspension on o-tert-
Butylcyclohexanol.
H.R. 2168--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 5-Methyl-2-
(methylethyl) cyclohexyl-2-hydroxypropanoate.
H.R. 2169--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cohedur RL.
H.R. 2170--A bill to extend the duty suspension on isothiocyanate.
H.R. 2171--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Vulkalent E/C.
H.R. 2172--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MBTS.
H.R. 2173--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2
Hexanediol.
H.R. 2175--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rayon
staple fibers.
H.R. 2179--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on hexanedioic
acid, polymer with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine.
H.R. 2198--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fixed ratio
speed changers for truck-mounted concrete mixers.
H.R. 2212--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Trinexapac-Ethyl.
H.R. 2213--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations
of Prosulfuron.
H.R. 2214--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations
of triasulfuron and dicamba.
H.R. 2215--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations
of triasulfuron.
H.R. 2220--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pontamine
Green 2B.
H.R. 2221--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Mesamoll.
H.R. 2222--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayderm Bottom
10 UD.
H.R. 2223--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayderm Finish
DLH.
H.R. 2224--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Levagard DMPP.
H.R. 2225--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayderm Bottom
DLV.
H.R. 2226--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers.
H.R. 2227--A bill to extend the duty suspension on ortho-
phenylphenol.
H.R. 2228--A bill to extend the duty suspension on
Iminodisuccinate.
H.R. 2241--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Lewatit.
H.R. 2242--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain ion-exchange resins.
H.R. 2243--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6
Dichlorotoluene.
H.R. 2244--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Glyoxylic Acid
50%.
H.R. 2245--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
paraChlorophenol.
H.R. 2246--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on allethrin.
H.R. 2252--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin.
H.R. 2253--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyazofamid.
H.R. 2254--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin.
H.R. 2255--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on on Flonicamid.
H.R. 2256--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Zeta-
Cypermethrin.
H.R. 2260--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
adsorbent resins.
H.R. 2261--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion
exchange resin.
H.R. 2262--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion
exchange resin.
H.R. 2263--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 10'10'
Oxybisphenoxarsine.
H.R. 2264--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Copper 8-
quinolinolate.
H.R. 2265--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion
exchange resin.
H.R. 2266--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion
exchange resin.
H.R. 2267--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a certain ion
exchange resin powder.
H.R. 2268--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a certain ion
exchange resin powder. H.R. 2269--A bill to extend the temporary
suspension of duty on helium. H.R. 2270--A bill to suspend temporarily
the duty on Desmodur E 14. H.R. 2271--A bill to suspend temporarily the
duty on Desmodur, IL.
H.R. 2272--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur HL.
H.R. 2273--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur VP LS
2253.
H.R. 2274--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur R-E.
H.R. 2275--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Walocel MW
3000 PFV.
H.R. 2276--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TSME.
H.R. 2277--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Walocel VP-M
20660.
H.R. 2278--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Citral.
H.R. 2279--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on XAMA 2.
H.R. 2280--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on XAMA 7.
H.R. 2281--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Ethylhexyl
4-methoxycinnamate.
H.R. 2282--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-
Methoxybenzaldehyde.
H.R. 2285--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain bags for toys.
H.R. 2286--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
cases for certain children's products.
H.R. 2287--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain children's products.
H.R. 2288--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cases
for toys.
H.R. 2289--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cases
for toys.
H.R. 2302--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on certain 12-
volt batteries.
H.R. 2303--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on certain light
absorbing photo dyes.
H.R. 2309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Aniline 2.5
Di-sulphonic Acid.
H.R. 2310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,4-
Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Polymer With N,N-Bis (2-Aminoethyl) -1,2-
Ethanediamine, Cyclized, Me Sulfates.
H.R. 2311--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain high-performance loudspeakers.
H.R. 2312--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain R-core transformers.
H.R. 2313--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Sulfur Blue 7.
H.R. 2314--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on reduced vat
blue 43.
H.R. 2315--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on sulfur black
1.
H.R. 2316--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown
GN Liquid Crude.
H.R. 2336--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
DMSIP.
H.R. 2371--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
bitolylene diisocyanate (TODI).
H.R. 2372--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
(Methoxycarbonyl)benzylsulfonamide.
H.R. 2373--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
chlorobenzenesulfonamide.
H.R. 2374--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ESPI.
H.R. 2375--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on CMBSI.
H.R. 2377--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain
automotive catalytic converter mats.
H.R. 2380--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on gemifloxacin,
gemifloxacin mesylate, and gemifloxacin mesylate sesquihydrate.
H.R. 2381--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on PHBA.
H.R. 2382--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Butralin.
H.R. 2394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Spirodiclofen.
H.R. 2395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Propamocarb
HCL (Previcur).
H.R. 2396--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Imidacloprid pesticides.
H.R. 2397--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Trifloxystrobin.
H.R. 2402--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur, IL.
H.R. 2403--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetone.
H.R. 2404--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on IPN
(Isophthalonitrile).
H.R. 2405--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on NOA 466510
Technical.
H.R. 2406--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Hexythiazox
Technical.
H.R. 2424--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 11-
Aminoundecanoic acid.
H.R. 2430--A bill to extend the duty reduction on ethylene/
tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE).
H.R. 2431--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,10
Diaminodecane.
H.R. 2432--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Crelan (self-
blocked cycloaliphatic polyuretdione).
H.R. 2433--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Aspirin.
H.R. 2434--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Baytron C-R.
H.R. 2435--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Baytron M.
H.R. 2436--A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on Baytron and
Baytron P.
H.R. 2437--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur BL XP
2468.
H.R. 2438--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Hydrazine
Hydrate.
H.R. 2439--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain flame
retardant plasticizers.
H.R. 2440--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baypure DS.
H.R. 2441--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
BOPA.
H.R. 2442--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Thionyl Chloride.
H.R. 2443--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Ammonium Bifluoride.
H.R. 2444--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayowet C4.
H.R. 2445--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
PHBA.
H.R. 2446--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Mondur P.
H.R. 2447--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on P-
Phenylphenol.
H.R. 2448--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
DEMT.
H.R. 2449--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Bayowet FT-248.
H.R. 2450--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
PNTOSA.
H.R. 2451--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Baysilone Fluid.
H.R. 2452--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Desmodur.
H.R. 2453--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur HL.
H.R. 2454--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on D-Mannose.
H.R. 2459--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
yarn of combed Kashmir (cashmere) and yarn of camel hair.
H.R. 2460--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain yarn of carded Kashmir (cashmere).
H.R. 2461--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain Kashmir (cashmere) hair.
H.R. 2462--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel
hair.
H.R. 2463--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on waste of camel
hair.
H.R. 2464--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel
hair.
H.R. 2465--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on woven fabric
containing vicuna hair.
H.R. 2466--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel
hair.
H.R. 2467--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
fine animal hair of Kashmir (cashmere) goats.
H.R. 2468--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on noils of camel
hair.
H.R. 2469--A bill to extend temporarily the duty suspension on
certain semi-manufactured forms of gold.
H.R. 2473--A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.
H.R. 2477--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2478--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2479--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2480--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2481--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2482--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2483--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
bicycle parts.
H.R. 2492--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Crotonic Acid.
H.R. 2493--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Glyoxylic Acid
50.
H.R. 2494--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic
acid, ethyl ester.
H.R. 2495--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic
Acid, Sodium Salt.
H.R. 2496--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
3,6,9-Trioxaundecanedioic acid.
H.R. 2497--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Acetamiprid Technical.
H.R. 2501--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-
2,2-imethyl-,(2-meth yl(1,1-biphenyl) -3-yl)methyl ester, (z).
H.R. 2502--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphonic
acid (2-chloroethyl) (Ethephon).
H.R. 2503--A bill to suspend the duty on Iprodione.
H.R. 2504--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Cyclohexen-
1-one, and 2-(1-(((3-chloro-2- propenyl)oxy)imino) propyl)-5-(2-
(ethylthio) propyl)-3-hydroxy (Clethodim).
H.R. 2505--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoic acid,
o- and ((3-(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)-ureido)sulfonyl)-, methylester
(Sulfometuron methyl).
H.R. 2506--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethyl-, 3-
phenoxybenzyl ester, ( +-)-,(cis,trans).
H.R. 2507--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoic acid,
2-(((((4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)-
carbonyl)amino)sulfonyl)-, methyl ester.
H.R. 2522--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on filter blue
green photo dye.
H.R. 2523--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on ammonium
bifluoride.
H.R. 2524--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Bis(4-
fluorophenyl) methanone.
H.R. 2532--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on urea, polymer
with formaldehyde (Pergopak).
H.R. 2535--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on polymethine
photo-sensitizing dyes.
H.R. 2536--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 4-
Hexylresorcinol.
H.R. 2537--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on certain
organic pigments and dyes.
H.R. 2538--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on a
certain ultraviolet dye.
H.R. 2539--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain cathode-ray tubes.
H.R. 2540--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain cathode ray tubes.
H.R. 2542--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on low expansion
laboratory glass.
H.R. 2543--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on stoppers,
lids, and other closures.
H.R. 2544--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
benzoic acid, 2-amino-4-[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl
ester.
H.R. 2545--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acid Blue 80.
H.R. 2546--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Pigment Red 185.
H.R. 2547--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Solvent blue 124.
H.R. 2548--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Brown
25.
H.R. 2549--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red
188.
H.R. 2550--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Pigment Yellow 154.
H.R. 2551--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Pigment Yellow 175.
H.R. 2552--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow
213.
H.R. 2556--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener
electric devices with warmer units.
H.R. 2557--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener
electric devices.
H.R. 2573--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cuprammonium
rayon yarn.
H.R. 2575--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Methyl
thioglycolate (MTG).
H.R. 2576--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Ethyl
pyruvate.
H.R. 2577--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Indoxacarb.
H.R. 2578--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl
carbonate.
H.R. 2579--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Chloro-1-
indanone (EK179).
H.R. 2580--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Methyl-4-
trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate (DPX-KL540).
H.R. 2581--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on the formulated
product containing mixtures of the active ingredients 5-methyl-5-(4-
phenoxyphenyl)-3-(phenylamino)-2,4-oxazolidi edione] (famoxadone) and
2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide (cymoxanil)
and application adjuvants.
H.R. 2582--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ortho nitro
aniline.
H.R. 2583--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Decanedioic
acid, Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl).
H.R. 2584--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoxazole,
2,2-(2,5-thiophenediyl)bis(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl).
H.R. 2585--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 2methyl-4,6-
bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol.
H.R. 2586--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 4-[[4,6-
bis(octylthio)-1,3,5-traizine-2-yl]amino]-2,6-bis(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenol.
H.R. 2589--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain filament yarns.
H.R. 2590--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
certain filament yarns.
H.R. 2591--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain yarn
(other than sewing thread) of synthetic staple fibers, not put up for
retail sale.
H.R. 2596--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on modified steel
leaf spring leaves.
H.R. 2597--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on suspension
system stabilizer bars.
H.R. 2598--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on steel leaf
spring leaves.
H.R. 2602--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Formulations of
Azoxystrobin.
H.R. 2603--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin
Technical.
H.R. 2604--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Formulations of
Pinoxaden/Cloquintocet-Mexyl.
H.R. 2605--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations
of Difenoconazole/Mefenoxam.
H.R. 2606--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Fludioxonil
Technical.
H.R. 2607--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations
of Clodinafop-propargyl.
H.R. 2608--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Emamectin
Benzoate Technical.
H.R. 2609--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cloquintocet
Technical.
H.R. 2610--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mefenoxam
Technical.
H.R. 2611--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyproconazole
Technical.
H.R. 2612--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pinoxaden
Technical.
H.R. 2613--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations
of Tralkoxydim.
H.R. 2614--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Propiconazole
Technical - Bulk.
H.R. 2615--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin
Technical.
H.R. 2624--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain items
and to reduce temporarily the duty on certain items.
H.R. 2632--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3'-
Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride.
H.R. 2675--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMC114.
H.R. 2676--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
chemicals and chemical mixtures.
H.R. 2677--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
chemicals.
H.R. 2678--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of
(1A1B1A)-(cis and trans)-1-(2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)- 4-propyl-1,3-
dioxalan-2-yl)methyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole (Propiconazole) and application
adjuvants.
H.R. 2696--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino).
H.R. 2697--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(2-),
[2,4-dihydro-4-[[2-(hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-met hyl-3H-
pyrazol-3-onato(2-)-kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-( 4-methylphenyl)-
5-(oxo-kO)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydro xy-kO)-5-
nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, disodium.
H.R. 2698--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,8-bis(phenylthio).
H.R. 2699--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis[[5-[[4-chloro-6-[methyl[2-
(meth ylamino)-2-oxoethyl]amino]-1,3,5-tria zin-2-yl]amino]-2-
sulfophenyl]azo]-5 -hydroxy-, lithium potassium sodium salt.
H.R. 2700--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7-[(5-chloro-2,6-difluoro-4-
pyrimidinyl)amino]-4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy-2-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium
salt.
H.R. 2701--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-6-[[2-methoxy-5-[[2-
(sulfo oxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-3-[[4-[[2-
(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo -, tetrasodium salt.
H.R. 2702--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-3,6-bis[[4-[[2-
(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, tetra sodium salt.
H.R. 2703--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on [2,2'-Bi-1H-
indole]-3,3 -diol-, potassium sodium salt.
H.R. 2704--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3-
Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-
hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-methyl-6-(phenylamino).
H.R. 2705--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid,
cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2-benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-,
pentyl ester.
H.R. 2706--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Benzenesulfonic acid, [(9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo-1,4-
anthracenediyl)bis[imino[3-(2- methylpropyl)-3,1-propanediyl]]]bis-,
disodium salt.
H.R. 2707--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid,
[4-(2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-phenylbenzo[1,2-b:4,5-b']difuran -3-
yl)phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl ester.
H.R. 2708--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzo[1,2-
b:4,5-b ]difuran-2,6-dione, 3-phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl).
H.R. 2709--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Ethanesulfonic
acid, 2-[[[2,5-dichloro-4-[(2-methyl-1H-indol-3-
yl)azo]phenyl]sulfonyl]amino]-, monoso dium salt.
H.R. 2710--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 5-[[4-chloro-6-[(3-sulfophenyl)amino]-
1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino] -4-hydroxy-3- [[4-[[2-
(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo],sodium salt.
H.R. 2711--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,6-
Naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-
[[4-[[3-[(aminocarb onyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amio] -6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]- - chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt).
H.R. 2712--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino).
H.R. 2713--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Anthracenesulfonic acid, 4-[[3-(acetylamino)phenyl]amino]-1-amino-9,10-
dihydro-9,10-d ioxo-, monosodium salt.
H.R. 2714--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid,
[4-[2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)benzo[1,2-b:4,5 -b
]difuran-3-yl]phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl ester.
H.R. 2764--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2
methyl 5 nitrobenzenesulfonic acid.
H.R. 2765--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-
cresidine sulfonic acid.
H.R. 2766--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,4
disulfo benzaldehyde.
H.R. 2767--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on n
ethyl N (3-sulfobenzyl) aniline.
H.R. 2768--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on m-
hydroxy benzaldehyde.
H.R. 2769--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2
amino 5 sulfobenzoic acid.
H.R. 2770--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2
amino 6 nitro phenol 4 sulfonic acid.
H.R. 2771--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,5
bis [(1,3 dioxobutyl) amino] benzene sulfonic acid.
H.R. 2772--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4
[(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid, monosodium salt.
H.R. 2773--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on oleoresin
turmeric.
H.R. 2774--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on basic yellow
40 chloride based.
H.R. 2775--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on direct yellow
119.
H.R. 2776--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4
[(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid.
H.R. 2777--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on oleoresin
paprika.
H.R. 2781--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Naugard 412S.
H.R. 2782--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Triacetonamine.
H.R. 2783--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Ipconazole.
H.R. 2784--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Omite Tech.
H.R. 2785--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pantera
Technical.
H.R. 2806--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Paraquat
Dichloride.
H.R. 2809--A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on Carfentrazone.
H.R. 2810--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-
(Ethylsulfonly)-2-pyridinesulfonamide.
H.R. 2816--A bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain tuna.
H.R. 2817--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
basketballs.
H.R. 2818--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
leather basketballs.
H.R. 2819--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber
basketballs.
H.R. 2820--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
volleyballs.
H.R. 2821--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
synthetic basketballs.
H.R. 2825--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Chloro-3-
[[3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-1,3-dioxopropyl-]amino]-do decyl ester.
H.R. 2833--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on NaMBT.
H.R. 2836--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Allyl
isosulfocynate.
H.R. 2837--A bill to extend the duty suspension on sodium methylate
powder.
H.R. 2838--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Trimethyl cyclo
hexanol.
H.R 2839--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 2,2-Dimethyl-3-
(3-methylphenyl)proponal.
H.R. 2845--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain plain
woven fabrics.
H.R. 2847--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxamide, N, N-Bis (2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-.
H.R. 2848--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on reaction
products of phosphorus trichloride with 1,1-biphenyl and 2,4-bis(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenol.
H.R. 2849--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on preparations
based on ethanediamide, N-(2-ethoxyphenyl)-N-(4-isodecylphenyl)-.
H.R. 2850--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-
(3-dodecyl-2,5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine.
H.R. 2851--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 3-Dodecyl-1-
(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-2,5-pyrrolid nedione.
H.R. 2852--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Tetraacetylethylenediamine.
H.R. 2853--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on sodium
petroleum sulfonate.
H.R. 2854--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on esters and
sodium esters of parahydroxybenzoic acid.
H.R. 2855--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Oxalic
Anilide.
H.R. 2856--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
inflatable balls.
H.R. 2879--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on P Tolulene
Sulfonyl Chloride.
H.R. 2880--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3
Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride.
H.R. 2881--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-Amino
Benzamide.
H.R. 2882--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-Cloro
Aniline.
H.R. 2883--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-Chloro-o-
Nitro Aniline.
H.R. 2884--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3 Chloro-4-
Methylanine.
H.R. 2885--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetoacet-o-
Chloro Anilide.
H.R. 2886--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetoacet-p-
Anisidine.
H.R. 2887--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Alpha Oxy
Naphthoic Acid.
H.R. 2888--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Green
7 Crude, not ready for use as a pigment.
H.R. 2889--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3 Diamino
Isoindoline.
H.R. 2890--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,8
Naphthalamide.
H.R. 2896--A bill to remove the 100 percent tariff imposed on
roasted chicory and other roasted coffee substitutes.
H.R. 2906--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on linuron.
H.R. 2907--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on N,N-
dimethylpiperidinium chloride.
H.R. 2908--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on diuron.
H.R. 2909--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on formulated
product KROVAR IDF.
H.R. 2913--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Thiamethoxam
Technical.
H.R. 2914--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Triasulfuron
Technical.
H.R. 2915--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Brodifacoum
Technical.
H.R. 2916--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pymetrozine
Technical.
H.R. 2917--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations
of Thiamethoxam, Difenoconazole, Fludioxinil, and Mefenoxam.
H.R. 2918--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Trifloxysulfuron-Sodium Technical.
H.R. 2919--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on diisopropyl
succinate.
H.R. 2920--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-di-tert-
butyl-6-(5-chlorobenzotriazol-2-yl)phenol.
H.R. 2921--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of
Butanedioic acid, dimethylester, polymer with 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-1-piperidine ethanol and 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-
triamine,N,N'''-[1,2-ethane-diyl-bis [ [ [4,6-bis-[butyl (1,2,2,6,6-
pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2 yl] imino]-3,1-
propanediyl] ] bis[N',N''- dibutyl-N',N''-bis(1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-
piperidinyl)-.
H.R. 2922--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-chloro-
benzonitrile.
H.R. 2954--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on manganese
metal flake containing at least 99.5 percent by weight of manganese.
H.R. 2972--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 6-[(2,4-diaminophenyl)azo]-3-[[4-[[4-[[7-
[(2,4-diaminophenyl azo]-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
naphthalenyl]azo]phenyl]amino]-3- sulfophenyl]azo]-4-hydroxy-,
trisodium salt.
H.R. 2973--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Methylene Bis-
Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol.
H.R. 2974--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bis-
Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenol Triazine.
H.R. 2975--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2-[(1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis[imino(6-fluoro-
1,3,5-tria ine-4,2-diyl)imino[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4,1-phenylene]az
]]bis[5-[(4-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium salt.
H.R. 2976--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(2-),
[3-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-4-[[2-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-1-naphthale
yl]azo-.kappa.N2]-1-naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][1-[[2-(hydroxy kappa.O)-
5-[4-methoxyphenyl)azo]phenyl]azo-.kappa.N2]-2-nap hthalenolato(2-
)-.kappa.O]-, disodium.
H.R. 2996--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims.
H.R. 2997--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims.
H.R. 2998--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims.
H.R. 2999--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims.
H.R. 3001--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims.
H.R. 3002--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims.
H.R. 3015--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2 benzylthio-
3-ethyl sulfonyl pyridine.
H.R. 3016--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
carbamic acid.
H.R. 3023--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-amino-4-
methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazine.
H.R. 3024--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulated
products containing mixtures of the active ingredient 2-chloro-N-[[(4-
methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2yl) amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide
and application adjuvants.
H.R. 3025--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Esfenvalerate.
H.R. 3026--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-methyl-4-
methoxy-6-methylamino-1,3,5-triazine.
H.R. 3027--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of
sodium-2-chloro-6-[(4,6 dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)thio]benzoate and
application adjuvants (pyrithiobac-sodium).
H.R. 3028--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Methyl 2-
[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-tri zin-2-yl]-
amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate and application
adjuvants.
H.R. 3029--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Benzyl
carbazate.
H.R. 3030--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of N-
[[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsul onyl)-2-
pyridinesulfonamide and application adjuvants.
H.R. 3033--A bill to extend the temporary reduction in duty on
certain educational devices.
H.R. 3066--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to provide separate tariff categories for certain tractor
body parts.
H.R. 3067--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States to provide a new subheading for certain log forwarders
used as motor vehicles for the transport of goods for duty-free
treatment consistent with other agricultural use log handling
equipment.
H.R. 3089--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-bis(4-
Aminophenoxy)benzene (RODA).
H.R. 3090--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pyromellitic
Dianhydride (PMDA).
H.R. 3091--A bill to extend temporarily the duty suspension on
4,4'-Oxydiphthalic Anhydride (ODPA).
H.R. 3092--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on 4,4'-
Oxydianiline (ODA).
H.R. 3093--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3',4,4'-
Biphenyltetracarboxylic Dianhydride (BPDA).
H.R. 3105--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain aramid
chopped fiber.
H.R. 3106--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fabric woven
with certain continuous filament wholly nylon type-66 textured yarns.
H.R. 3112--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
decorative plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and
architectural miniatures.
H.R. 3113--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups,
with or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
H.R. 3114--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
H.R. 3115--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
clocks.
H.R. 3116--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass
articles.
H.R. 3117--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass
articles of lead crystal.
H.R. 3118--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain music
boxes.
H.R. 3119--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
carfentazone ethyl.
H.R. 3120--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cores
used in remanufacture.
H.R. 3126--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain entries.
H.R. 3210--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-
Amino-5-mercapto-1,2,4-triazole.
H.R. 3211--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
748+-bromo-748+-nitrostyrene.
H.R. 3212--A bill to the temporary suspension of duty on asulam
sodium salt.
H.R. 3213--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.
H.R. 3214--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
Propenoic acid, polymer with diethenylbenzene.
H.R. 3215--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ADTP.
H.R. 3216--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Benfluralin.
H.R. 3217--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DCBTF.
H.R. 3218--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Noviflumuron.
H.R. 3219--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Cyhalofop.
H.R. 3220--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
parachlorobenzotrifluoride.
H.R. 3221--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of
insecticide.
H.R. 3222--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
2,6-Dichloro aniline.
H.R. 3223--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a certain
mixture of fungicide.
H.R. 3224--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2-
Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9CI).
H.R. 3225--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3,
4-Dichlorobenzonitrile.
H.R. 3226--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Styrene, ar-
ethyl-, polymer with divinylbenzene and styrene (6CI) beads with low
ash.
H.R. 3227--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2-
Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9CI).
H.R. 3228--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
DEPCT.
H.R. 3229--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on trifluralin.
H.R. 3230--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
1,2-Benzenedicarboxaldehyde.
H.R. 3231--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
DMDS.
H.R. 3232--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of
fungicide.
H.R. 3233--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on trifluralin.
H.R. 3234--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone.
H.R. 3235--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid.
H.R. 3236--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain
mixtures of florasulam.
H.R. 3237--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxy-acetic acid, di-methylamine salt.
H.R. 3238--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
isoxaben.
H.R. 3239--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
halofenozide.
H.R. 3240--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
methoxyfenozide.
H.R. 3241--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on myclobutanil.
H.R. 3242--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
propanil.
H.R. 3243--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
propiconazole.
H.R. 3244--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
quinoline.
H.R. 3245--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on fluoroxypyr.
H.R. 3246--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
tebufenozide.
H.R. 3247--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
mixed isomers of 1,3-dichloropropene.
H.R. 3257--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on biaxially
oriented polypropylene dielectric film.
H.R. 3258--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on biaxially
oriented polyethylene terephthalate dielectric film.
H.R. 3285--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on charge control
agent 7.
H.R. 3286--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet black
820 liquid feed.
H.R. 3287--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet cyan 1
RO feed and pro-jet cyan OF 1 RO feed.
H.R. 3288--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet
magenta M700.
H.R. 3289--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet jellow
1G Stage.
H.R. 3290--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet fast
black 287 NA liquid feed.
H.R. 3291--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet fast
black 286 stage.
H.R. 3292--A bill to extend the duty suspension on pro-jet black
263 stage.
H.R. 3293--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet cyan
485 stage.
H.R. 3294--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet black
661 liquid feed.
H.R. 3295--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet cyan
854 liquid feed.
H.R. 3303--A bill to suspend temporarily the deposit requirements
and assessments of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on
imports of CHQ wire rod covered by certain countervailing and
antidumping duty orders.
H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial
flowers.
H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electrically
operated pencil sharpeners.
H.R. 3340--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phenmedipham.
H.R. 3341--A bill to suspend tempoarily the duty on Desmedipham.
H.R. 3342--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
ethofumesate.
H.R. 3343--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Nemacur VL.
H.R. 3346--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2 benzylthio-
3-ethyl sulfonyl pyridine.
H.R. 3353--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
H.R. 3354--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
H.R. 3355--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
H.R. 3356--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
H.R. 3357--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
H.R. 3363--A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to
drawback.
H.R. 3371--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation
of certain entries.
H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
footwear with open toes or heels.
H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work
footwear.
H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
women's footwear.
H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
footwear for girls.
H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
protective footwear.
H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
athletic footwear.
H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
footwear with open toes or heels.
H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work
footwear.
H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work
footwear.
H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work
footwear.
H.R. 3414--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
refracting and reflecting telescopes.
H.R. 3415--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixture of
magnesium peroxide and magnesium oxide containing 35 percent magnesium
peroxide.
H.R. 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign
affairs exemption to the rule making requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee
for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Note: All Committee
advisories and news releases are available on the World Wide Web
athttp://waysandmeans.house.gov.
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
CONTACT: (202) 225-6649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 05, 2005
No. TR-3 Revised
Shaw Announces Additional Bills on
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced the addition
of the following bills to the July 25 request for written comments on
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty
suspension bills.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of
the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the
Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ``109th
Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http://
waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=17). Select the request
for written comments for which you would like to submit, and click on
the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the
record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions, completing
all informational forms and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an
email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your
interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to
the email and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document,
in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close
of business Friday, September 2, 2005. inally, please note that due to
the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse
sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions,
or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages,
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name,
company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
SUMMARY OF BILLS:
H.R. 915--A bill to authorize the President to take certain actions
to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan.
H.R. 3176--A bill to amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act to provide preferential treatment for certain apparel articles that
are both cut (or knit to shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one
or more beneficiary countries under that Act from fabrics or yarn not
widely available in commercial quantities.
H.R 3483--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
footwear.
H.R. 3484--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
athletic footwear.
H.R. 3485--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work
footwear.
H.R. 3486--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
footwear for men.
H.R. 3487--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber
or plastic footwear.
H.R. 3488--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work
footwear.
H.R. 3489--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
athletic footwear.
H.R. 3490--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber
or plastic footwear.
H.R. 3491--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
leather footwear.
H.R. 3527--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Ethalfluralin.
H.R. 3528--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Diphenyl sulfide.
H.R. 3529--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
4,4-Dimethoxy-2-butanone.
H.R. 3530--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Methacrylamide.
H.R. 3531--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
Fenbuconazole.
H.R. 3609--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
thiophanate methyl and application adjuvants.
H.R. 3610--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on zinc
dimethyldithiocarbamate.
H.R. 3611--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on
thiophanate methyl.
H.R. 3635--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
sardines in oil, in airtight containers, neither skinned nor boned.
H.R. 3636--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on prepared or
preserved oysters, not smoked.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
Buckman Laboratories, Inc.
Memphis, Tennessee 38108
August 30, 2005
House Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
United States Congress
Washington, DC
It has been brought to our attention that 109th Congress H.R. 178
would suspend until 2014 the import duty on dichloroethyl ether
(``DCEE''). Buckman Laboratories, Inc. (``Buckman''), the principal
U.S. manufacturer of DCEE, opposes eliminating the import duties
currently imposed on that product.
Buckman is a privately held international specialty chemicals
manufacturer headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. Founded in 1945,
today Buckman is a leading manufacturer of specialty chemicals for
aqueous industrial systems. The company works with industries worldwide
to provide advanced chemical treatment technologies and extensive
technical service to solve complex industrial problems. Buckman
produces over 500 different products and employs over 1,300 people in
over 70 countries.
Buckman produces DCEE principally for further manufacturing use as
a component of water treatment products. DCEE is one of the two raw
materials used to make a water treatment product called WSCP, a
microbicide that controls algae growth in swimming pools or in cooling
towers. Buckman also uses DCEE as a manufacturing component of other
Buckman recreational and industrial water treatment products,
domestically and internationally, and sells DCEE directly both as a
stand-alone solvent product and as an intermediate for other reactive
products to the oilfield drilling and equipment business. Other known
international DCEE producers include Maruzen, a Japanese company.
Maruzen manufactures DCEE in Japan utilizing a different, potentially
more volatile acyclic ether manufacturing process, and exports it to
the U.S. as a solvent, principally to the U.S. oilfield business
through U.S. distributors. Importers have paid a duty on DCEE produced
overseas for many years, as confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit on May 12, 2004 (E.T. Horn v. U.S., case #03-1363).
Having lost an attempt to reduce the import duty to 1% from 5.6%,
the proponents of H.R. 178 (introduced last January at the peak of the
most recent increase in oil prices) simply desire greater profits by
eliminating the import duty altogether. There is no evidence
eliminating the import tariff on DCEE will rectify a product shortage
(as none exists), lower wholesale DCEE prices to U.S. firms, or lower
retail prices for refined petroleum products or water treatment
products. To the contrary, H.R. 178 likely will increase profits and
purchases of DCEE from non-U.S. manufacturers, increase incentives to
locate or relocate DCEE plants overseas, decrease domestic profits for
U.S. manufacturers, and reduce U.S. plant production levels with
related effects on needs for domestic skilled labor.
Buckman manufactures more than five million pounds annually of DCEE
at its Cadet, Missouri, plant. DCEE has been one of our company's most
important products for more than thirty years. Buckman has invested
more than $27 million in our Cadet manufacturing facilities to date.
Over thirty full-time employees work at Cadet's highly efficient, very
competitive plant. Importantly, the Cadet facility has sufficient
capacity to produce up to 12.5 million pounds of DCEE annually for
domestic and international markets if demand materializes.
Buckman prefers to be able to continue (and increase) domestic
production of DCEE. We submit that the proponents can make no
compelling case for eliminating the import tariff on DCEE at this time
since virtually all domestic and a majority of international demand may
be met by current U.S. production facilities, and since international
manufacturers compete vigorously to stabilize wholesale prices.
Buckman would be delighted to show any member of Congress or its
staff our state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities and illustrate the
issues raised by H.R. 178. Please contact Rocky Stevens (573-438-8101)
or Chuck Brandenburg (901-272-8339) to arrange a tour.
Please contact us immediately should further questions arise.
Sincerely,
Charles D. Brandenburg
President
William C. Pitcher
Vice President-Legal, General Counsel
Statement of Erik O. Autor, National Retail Federation
The National Retail Federation (NRF) submits this statement to the
Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee to express the U.S. retail industry's
strong opposition H.R. 445, which is under consideration for inclusion
in a miscellaneous trade bill. NRF is the world's largest retail trade
association with membership that comprises all retail formats and
channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount,
catalog, Internet and independent stores as well as the industry's key
trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an
industry with more than 1.5 million U.S. retail establishments, more
than 23 million employees--about one in five American workers--and 2004
sales of $4.1 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also
represents more than 100 state, national and international retail
associations.
H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
Finally, NRF opposes H.R. 445, regardless of how it is packaged (as
stand-alone legislation or as part of another piece of legislation).
The measure is unworkable and unnecessary. It is unworkable because not
all furniture can bear a sign that is at least 70 square centimeters in
size that would not significantly detract from the appearance of the
furniture (e.g., wall mirrors).
It is unnecessary because U.S. law and regulation already require
that a country of origin designation be placed on a product in such a
way that the final consumer can readily ascertain its origin. Currently
labels are typically placed at the back of a piece of furniture or
inside it (for example, within a dresser drawer) to provide the
information to the consumer without marring its appearance and
diminishing its value.
Retail companies' long experience with customer relations has
consistently shown that the vast majority of consumers do not care
about the country of origin of the products they buy, at least to the
extent that they demand the information be placed in a more conspicuous
location. Those who are concerned can readily ascertain the origin
under current rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, legislation such
as H.R. 445 is not designed to inform customers more fully, but rather
to act as a non-tariff trade barrier. As such, it would be actionable
through the dispute settlement procedures at the WTO as being in
violation of U.S. obligations under the rules of international trade.
NRF appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments H.R. 445.
We strongly oppose and urge the exclusion of H.R. 445 from any
miscellaneous trade legislation.
[By permission of the Chairman.]
Dairy Australia
Victoria, Australia
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw
On July 25 you invited public comments on bills proposed for
inclusion in a package of miscellaneous tariff measures. These
comments, in opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 521 in that package,
are submitted by Dairy Australia on behalf of dairy manufacturers and
producers located in Australia.
Dairy Australia is a private, not-for-profit industry services
association. Dairy Australia's activities are funded by a compulsory
check-off on all cows milk produced in Australia. The size of the
check-off is decided by a vote of all economically active dairy farmers
every three years.
Australian dairy processors are globally competitive; producing
high quality milk protein concentrates (MPC's) and casein (including
caseinates). Exports of these value added dairy ingredients to the
United States and a range of other countries are not subsidized i.e.
Australian dairy processors rely solely on the market place for
turnover and profitability. Australian origin casein exports have
entered the U.S. market for over 50 years.
This bill would establish tariff rate quotas (TRQ's) on MPC's and
casein at levels less than 50 percent of respective volumes imported in
2004. If implemented the out-of-quota or high tier TRQ ad-valorem rate,
based on current import values, of 38 per cent for MPC and 44 percent
for casein would effectively restrict trade to the in-quota volumes.
This would allow no scope for innovative Australian dairy processors to
grow, unhindered by non-commercial barriers, their business in the
United States marketplace.
Background
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1949 effectively eliminated,
until 2003 the ability of U.S. domiciled manufacturers to operate a
profitable casein industry; through adjusting the dairy price support
program to economically encourage the drying of milk proteins into non-
fat dry milk (NDM) powder. (MPC was not commercially available in
1949).The March 2001 General Accounting Office report \1\ noted the
U.S. industry is hamstrung in trying to switching to value added milk
protein ingredients because of ``economic disincentives'' created by
the dairy price support system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reference is GAO-01-326, page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government policies can play an important role in influencing the
competitiveness of dairy products and in turn influencing product mix
decisions by processors. In this regard the 1979 International Trade
Commission (ITC) Section 332 report noted that with the institution of
the price support program, as mandated by the 1949 Agricultural
Adjustment Act, domestic production of casein became less profitable
than the production of NDM.
Benefits of MPC and casein
MPC and casein imports benefit U.S. food manufacturers and
ultimately consumers through;
Providing tailored ingredients for specific end use(s) by
food manufacturers
Providing a high quality, nutritionally beneficial
ingredient at a competitive price; see attachment
Improving manufacturing efficiency through increasing
yields and reducing waste products because of the high concentration,
compared to possible substitutes such as NDM, of milk proteins
In many instances MPC and casein do not replace domestic U.S.
origin NDM because of superior nutritional functional and flavor
attributes. NDM has substantially higher levels of lactose (milk sugar)
and substantially lower levels of the commercially valuable milk
protein.
The major beneficiaries of TRQ's may be suppliers of non dairy
substitutes such as soy; potentially causing a permanent loss of market
opportunity for dairy proteins if ingredient users alter their recipe
formulas.
Imported MPC and casein have only played a very marginal, if at
all, role in displacing domestically produced milk proteins. The
International Trade Commission (ITC) report released in May 2004 \2\
stated that imported milk proteins that ``may'' have substituted for
domestically produced milk proteins accounts for approximately only
1.27 percent of U.S. milk protein production from 1998-2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Conditions of competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S.
market, Investigation No 332.-453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian MPC exports to the United States
An example of a mutually beneficial commercial relationship is that
between Australia's largest dairy processor, Murray Goulburn
Cooperative and a family owned food company based in Illinois, Erie
Foods International (Erie).
The relationship evolved as a result of the impact on the U.S.
dairy processing sector of the 1949 Agricultural Structural Adjustment
Act. Erie was forced to stop the domestic manufacturing of casein
because it became more economic to dry milk protein into the commodity
product, NDM rather than convert into value added milk protein
products.
Erie began at that time a joint venture casein manufacturing
operation in Australia with a predecessor company to Murray Goulburn.
The commercial venture has prospered and has grown to include the
import of milk protein concentrates.
Australia has a long if varied history of exporting milk protein
concentrates to United States. The original exporter was United Milk
Tasmania. Exports by season were;
1982/83 28 tonnes
1983/84 170 tonnes
1984/85 200 tonnes
1985/86 125 tonnes
1986/87 440 tonnes
1987/88 100 tonnes
Most of this was MPC 75 percent, although the following MPC's were
made and exported; 42, 50, 56, 70, 75 and 80. The entire product was
made via ultra-filtration.
Australia since 1995 has been the third largest supplier of imports
of milk proteins to the United States; behind New Zealand and the
European Union who collectively dominate trade.
Tariff Classification History: Are MPC Imports taking advantage of a
U.S. Trade loophole?
The short answer is no!
Congress considered the issue of Customs classification of MPC in
1984. Casein had previously been afforded duty free entry with zero
quantitative (quota) restrictions because the 1949 Agricultural
Structural Adjustment Act, by including NDM rather than casein in the
price support program, had effectively decimated domestic production of
the latter.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To quote from an Erie Foods letter to Representative Manzullo
in March 2002; ``As a result of federal farm legislation in the late
1940's, our company was forced to stop the domestic manufacturing of
casein and began at that time a joint venture manufacturing operation
in Australia which under Australian ownership continues to this day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1984 deliberations, the House Ways and Means Committee
considered two very different approaches. The first was developed by
the Senate Finance Committee, which had recommended a provision that
would have defined milk protein concentrates narrowly. That committee
observed that three recently developed dairy products were currently
being classified in different ``basket'' categories, with;
Whey protein concentrate classified as TSUS 183.05 (other
edible preparations not specifically provided for), dutiable at 10
percent ad valorem;
Lactalbumin classified as TSUS 190.15 (albumin not
specially provided for) free of duty; and
Total milk proteinate classified as TSUS 493.17 (other
casein and mixtures in chief value thereof) dutiable at 0.2 cents per
pound
The Senate provisions would have extended the scope of the existing
quota provisions for dried milk, dried cream and dried whey (TSUS
950.01 and 950.02) to cover the three new tariff categories as well,
and would have made them subject to Section 22 quotas. However, the
House Ways and Means Committee, by contrast, considered the Senate
Approach but did not adopt it and it was not included in the 1984 law.
The Summary of Provisions of HR 3398 (Trade and Tariff Act of 1984)
as passed by the House and Senate (WMCP: 98-39) states: ``Under present
law, whey protein concentrate, lactalbumin and milk protein concentrate
are classified under various `basket' provisions in the TSUS. The
conference agreement creates new tariff provisions for each of these
recently developed dairy products. The applicable tariff rates remain
unchanged and no quantitative restrictions would be imposed.''
Thus, the conference committee's language indicates that while the
Congress considered applying quotas to milk protein concentrates with
40 percent or more protein by weight, it deliberately decided not to do
so. Subsequently, the Uruguay Round Agreement converted the Section 22
quotas to Tariff-Rate Quotas, and bound the United States to maintain
its tariff treatment for milk protein concentrates as defined under the
1984 law described above.
In 1986, Congress modified the definition by changing ``albumin''
to ``lactalbumin''.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Page 8-4, section 123 of `The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions by the U.S. Customs Bureau in 2002 and 2003 have
supported the existing Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification i.e.
Note 13 to chapter 4 states ``For purposes of subheading 0404.90.10,
the term ``milk protein concentrates'' means any complete milk protein
(casein plus lactalbumin) concentrate that is 40 percent or more
protein by weight''. Customs rejected petitions organized by the
National Milk Producers Federation in 2002 and 2003 (Reg. 516 appeal)
to reclassify imported milk protein concentrates into tariff lines
covered by quotas.
In all these instances the policy intention is clear; Congress and
the Administration have determined not to place any restrictions on
trade.
U.S. and International Market Conditions for Milk Proteins
The issue of TRQ's on value added milk protein imports (MPC's,
casein and caseinates) needs to be viewed within the broader context of
favorable international market developments. Consecutive reductions in
the NDM support price in May 2001 and November 2002 and a sustained
upswing in the international (or traded) price for milk proteins since
mid 2003 has resulted in the following favorable impacts for the U.S.
dairy industry;
The United States has emerged as a major, non subsidized
exporter of milk proteins, primarily but not solely in the form of NDM
in 2004 and 2005.
The last subsidized sale under the Dairy Export Incentive
Scheme or DEIP was awarded in January 2004.
The emergence of an unsubsidized, import replacing MPC
industry in the United States. Since the second half of 2003 a joint
venture between Fonterra and Dairy Farmers of America the U.S.'s
largest dairy co-operative has resulted in profitable production at
Portales, New Mexico. A second MPC plant is now being developed in
Arizona; (a joint venture between the United Dairymen of Arizona and
Fonterra). Combined both plants will meet a large portion of total U.S.
demand.
The consequences of ill-judged policy actions will commercially hurt
the U.S. dairy sector
As mentioned earlier the competitive threat is very real and
growing from non-dairy substitutes. Non-dairy proteins, particularly
soy can and are used in many food applications, especially imitation
cheese products, non-dairy creamers and whipped toppings. Additionally
extensive work is being undertaken by major companies such as Solae and
Bunge to develop non-dairy protein substitutes targeted at replacing
milk proteins in all applications.
Restricting access for milk protein products will increase the
commercial incentives for non-dairy substitutes. This is detrimental to
the economic well being of the dairy industry in the United States and
globally.
H.R. 521 Violates U.S. Trade Commitments
Increasing tariffs on MPC and casein would violate U.S. WTO
obligations and the U.S. Free Trade Agreement with Australia. In these
trade pacts, the U.S. has agreed to maintain a certain level of duties.
If the U.S. unilaterally decides to raise its bound tariffs, Australia
and other countries supplying these dairy proteins to the U.S. market
have the right to seek compensation under Article XXVIII (28) of the
WTO.
Article XXVIII allows the U.S. Government to change WTO tariff
concessions by negotiation and agreement. Any effort by the U.S. to
change their commitments would involve either:
A re-negotiation with key supplying countries who seek to
maintain the status quo. A solution would offer corresponding
concessions on other products.
A unilateral change of the tariff rate and/or description
by the U.S. This would almost certainly lead to a WTO dispute
settlement action seeking either compensation and/or retaliating
against U.S. origin imports.
The Irish Dairy Board in an August 2001 note to the International
Trade Commission calculated compensation arrangements with WTO partners
such as the EU and New Zealand would amount to $447 million in
additional trade concessions.
The calculation is based on paragraph 6(b) of the `Understanding on
the interpretation of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994'. The paragraph
states ``when an unlimited tariff concession is replaced by a tariff
rate quota, the amount of compensation provided should exceed the
amount of trade actually affected by the modification of the
concession''. Point (b) of this paragraph provides for the calculation
to be based on trade in the most recent year increased by 10 per cent.
In respect of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement the relevant
article states that neither party may increase existing duties other
than as permitted under the Agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The relevant articles which describe how tariff elimination is
to be carried out are;
Article 2.3--Elimination of Customs Duties
Paragraph 1--tariff elimination should be in accordance
with Annex 2-B
Paragraph 2--neither party may increase existing duties
other than as permitted under the agreement
Annex 2-B--Tariff Elimination
Paragraph 1--base rates reflect rates in effect 1 January
2004
Paragraph 2--sets out staging categories for tariff
elimination, with additional categories in each party's schedule
Schedule of the United States--General Notes
Paragraph 4(b)--staging category F--duties removed in
equal annual installments over 18 years
U.S. Tariff Schedule--35011010 (MPC's)--base rate 0.37c/
kg, staging category F
Any alleged breach of the AUSFTA would go through the agreement's
dispute settlement provisions--details set out in Chapter 21 of the
Agreement. The Agreement was implemented on January 1, 2005.
In addition to the economic effects of the retaliation, the U.S.
would undermine its credibility to negotiate reduced agricultural trade
barriers (to market access) in the Doha Development Round of trade
negotiations. As a leader in advocating free trade, it would be highly
inconsistent for the U.S. to erect any new trade barriers.
In conclusion TRQ's on MPC and casein would severely restrict the
ability of U.S. food and non-food manufacturers to choose sourcing of
inputs; potentially add to the cost of food and reduce consumer welfare
through restricting supply of an essential ingredient; open the door
for functionally inferior non-dairy substitutes potentially leading to
a long-term loss of market opportunity; discourage product innovation
and product development that would increase consumer choice and help
consumers develop more nutritious diets, reduce competition in the U.S.
dairy market and result in the United States flouting their WTO and
bilateral (with Australia) trade commitments at a period when a
critical stage is being entered in the Doha Development Round.
Robert Pettit
Manager Americas and Caribbean--Trade and Strategy Group
Blank Rome LLP
Washington, DC 20037
September 2, 2005
Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
On July 25 you invited public comment on a number of bills proposed
for inclusion in a package of miscellaneous tariff measures. These
comments are submitted on behalf of Fonterra (USA), Inc., Lemoyne, PA,
in opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 521 in that package.
In brief, this bill would establish tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on
milk protein concentrate and casein (including caseinate) at severely
restrictive levels--less than 50% of the milk protein concentrate and
casein imported in 2004 would enter at current rates. In both cases the
above TRQ ad valorem rate, based on current import values--38.2% for
MPC and 44.4% for casein--are clearly prohibitive.
In an attempt to add a patina of legitimacy to such onerous trade
restrictions, the bill has been drafted in terms of the withdrawal of
concessions under Article XXVIII of the GATT. However, dressing up
these proposals as purported legitimate exercises of WTO rights cannot
hide the significant costs of the legislation, both in real dollars to
consumers and manufacturers, and in trade policy terms to the United
States. To erect a barrier under the guise of Article XXVIII, when in
fact the motivation for the measure lies in domestic politics, invites
others to renege on their trade commitments at the behest of changing
political winds.
Indeed, given those political winds here in the U.S., in May of
2003 Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley requested that the
International Trade Commission (ITC) investigate the competitive
conditions surrounding imported milk proteins In May of 2004 the ITC
reported on its unprecedented year-long investigation into the
economics of imported milk proteins (Conditions of Competition for Milk
Protein Products in the U.S. Market, Investigation No. 332-453, USITC
Publication 3692, May 2004). That report clarifies the facts and
dispels the economic myths regarding the impact these proteins have on
the U.S. domestic dairy industry. The ITC report is the most
comprehensive and authoritative analysis ever undertaken concerning the
economics of trade in milk proteins. Among its findings are the
following:
With respect to the assertion that milk protein imports
play a major role in depressing U.S.. milk prices, the ITC concludes
that
``The data do not show a clear and direct relationship between
imports of milk protein products and the all-milk price in all years.''
(Page 9-4). The report notes that the ITC reviewed a broad range of
studies by prominent dairy economists and, ``Even though these studies
differed in terms of modeling approaches, commodity coverage, and base
year, they generally found that imports of milk protein products have
had little impact on farm-level prices in the U.S. market.'' (Page 9-
23).
The report explains that domestic pricing of milk proteins, such as
skim milk powder (SMP), and farm gate milk prices are largely a
function of domestic government policies. ``The effect of imported milk
proteins on farm-level prices depends on whether the market price for
SMP is at, or above, the support price. Since SMP market prices were
generally equal to the support price over the study period, most of the
effect of imported milk protein was through U.S. Government purchases
of SMP . . .'' (Page xxxiii) Interestingly the government is not now
buying SMP and has disposed of virtually all of its accumulated stocks.
With respect to the assertion that milk protein imports
play a major role in displacing domestic milk proteins production, the
report states on ``a protein basis, imports of MPC, casein and
caseinate may have displaced 318 million pounds of U.S.-produced milk
proteins between 1998-2002.'' (Page xxxii).
To put this in context, the 318 million pounds of imported milk
proteins that ``may'' have substituted for domestically produced milk
proteins accounts for approximately only 1.27 percent of U.S. milk
protein production from 1998-2002. It is not credible to argue that
this degree of possible substitution is a major factor in the economics
of the dairy market.
With respect to the assertion that foreign government
practices, notably E.U. subsidies, are the major factor driving imports
and inhibiting a U.S. casein, caseinate and MPC industry, the report
states, ``the Commission's questionnaire price data indicate that if
price leadership exists in the U.S. MPC market, it is exercised by the
Oceania countries.'' (Page 5-7). The report notes the fact that New
Zealand and Australia are the lowest cost major producers of milk
proteins in the world. The report states, ``Overall, the IFCN findings
show milk production costs to be lowest in New Zealand and Australia,
and to a lesser extent, the EU, where cows are generally fed by
rotational grazing. In this aspect of dairy farming, Australia, New
Zealand, and the EU operations have a distinct advantage over their
counterparts in the United States, where dairy cows are fed forage and
expensive concentrates.'' (Page 5-2). Moreover, the ITC found that the
level of government support of the dairy industries in both Australia
and New Zealand was far below that received in the U.S. and EU. ``New
Zealand has the lowest percentage of dairy farm receipts from
government support policies at less than 1 percent during the period.''
(Page 5-7).
What the ITC report did find is that the ``most important factors
affecting the competitiveness of milk protein industries are the cost
of milk production and government programs.'' (Page 5-1). The ITC
report explicitly points to disincentives to the U.S. production of
these milk proteins. These disincentives include the U.S. dairy price
support program, the milk marketing order system and the Food and Drug
Administration's ``standards of identity'' which proscribe certain
ingredients for certain foods, including a number of dairy products.
The report states, ``At the same time, U.S. government support for SMP
reduces the incentives to produce MPC and casein in the United
States.'' (Page 5-1). In possibly its most direct statement on this
topic, the report notes, ``U.S. production of these products is
limited, and likely to remain limited, so long as the current Federal
Milk Marketing Order and Dairy Price Support Program prices remain in
effect.'' (Page 7-24).
With respect to the assertion that imports of
concentrated milk proteins are ``loophole'' products and that U.S.
policymakers failed to reflect upon these proteins in developing and
implementing U.S. trade policy, the ITC report notes that, ``The Trade
and Tariff Act of 1984 created a new TSUS rate line for MPC.
Specifically section 123 of that Act established TSUS item 118.45,
covering MPC, with a duty rate of 0.2 cents per pound (the same rate
then in effect for casein under TSUS 493.17) and not subject to fees or
quantitative restrictions under section 22. Section 123 also created a
TSUS legal note defining the scope of the new MPC rate line. The note
stated, that ``for purposes of item 118.45, the term `milk protein
concentrate' means any complete milk protein (casein plus albumin)
concentrate that is 40 percent or more protein by weight. In 1986,
Congress modified the definition by changing ``albumin'' to
``lactalbumin.'' (Page 8-4). Clearly both the Congress and
Administration have been paying attention for a long time.
In addition it should be noted that:
Both milk protein concentrate and casein imports
substantially benefit U.S. industry and consumers by:
-- making available specialized products not available from
domestic sources
-- contributing to the ability of industry to utilize new
technology to make new products
-- encouraging the introduction of new products targeted toward
particular market segments such as geriatric foods and athletic drinks
-- improving process efficiency by increasing yields and reducing
waste product, the disposal of which is a continuing problem for the
industry.
-- The introduction of quotas would impose additional costs on
the U.S. food industry and would reduce their competitiveness
substantially. Rather than providing additional benefits for the food
and dairy industries, the imposition of quotas would have significant
downsides.
-- In most end uses imported MPC and casein do not replace U.S.
non-fat dry milk (NFDM) or other milk supplies, as both MPC and casein
have nutritional, functional and flavor attributes not shared by NFDM.
For example, for nutritional products, NFDM contains too much lactose
and too little protein. Other proteins such as soy are often better
substitutes for MPC and casein than NFDM.
-- To illustrate the widespread application of casein and MPC, we
have attached to this letter a list of some generic uses for them. As
you will note, the uses are strikingly broad. A catalog of branded
products containing these ingredients would certainly number in the
hundreds, and likely in the thousands.
-- MPC and casein duties were bound in the WTO by the U.S. in the
Uruguay Round. Thus the U.S. may not increase the tariffs or impose
quotas on these items without backtracking on its international
obligations. We understand that the Irish Dairy Board has supplied the
International Trade Commission with an estimate of the costs that would
be involved in Article XXVIII compensation, which they estimate to be
447 million dollars.
-- Clearly Article XXVIII was not intended to be utilized in the
erection of barriers to newly developed and technologically
sophisticated products, whose domestic development has been inhibited
by U.S. support policies.
-- Finally, it should be noted that Fonterra, in a joint venture
with Dairy Farmers of America, has begun MPC production in Portales,
New Mexico without a U.S. subsidy; dispelling any idea that the U.S.
producers are not able to compete against imports. The plant in
Portales is profitably responding to the market demand for MPC and is
running at full capacity. As a result of its success, a second plant is
being developed in Arizona to meet market demand, and when both plants
are operational (not to mention the prospect of additional capacity),
nearly half of U.S. domestic demand will be met by U.S. domestic
production--a dramatic change from just over 2 years ago.
In summary, the adoption of this bill would limit the access of
U.S. manufacturers of a wide range of food, nutritional and medical
products to ingredients which have been tailored to their particular
products. It would drive up their costs or force them to substitute
functionally inferior ingredients such as soy based proteins. In either
case, both they and the consumers they supply would be ill served.
Moreover, the U.S. would be obligated to pay significant compensation
to supplying countries, while creating a terrible precedent for others
to renege on their international obligations as we enter the final
stages of the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations.
Edward J. Farrell
General Mills
Washington, DC 20005
August 23, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
General Mills appreciates this opportunity to offer comments to the
Committee regarding including HR 521 in the Technical Corrections to
U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. General Mills
joins many others in strongly opposing the inclusion of HR 521. HR 521
is extraordinarily controversial; its adoption would imperil U.S. trade
negotiations and blunt the innovation of products using dairy
ingredients.
General Mills is a significant user of internationally sourced
caseins and caseinates, utilized to produce some of the best-known
consumer food products in the country. Tariffs on these proteins will
substantially increase raw material costs for domestic food processors,
negatively impact consumers, and ultimately be ineffective in solving
our country's dairy oversupply problem.
Caseins and caseinates exhibit unique product characteristics and
provide functionality not available with domestic dairy alternatives.
Casein is produced from skim milk by removing sugars, minor proteins,
and minerals by using enzymes and acid to physically separate these
components from the casein. Unfortunately, in the United States,
government subsidies cause casein production to be uneconomical. Milk
processors have an incentive to dry skim into non-fat dry milk (NFDM)
and sell this product to the government at the support price levels,
bypassing the casein production process. While NFDM is useful in many
food processing applications, it lacks many of the characteristics
needed for certain applications; including, attributes needed in the
production of substitute cheese for use in low cost food applications
and various baking applications.
The deficit supply environment for caseins and caseinates in the
U.S., combined with the unique functionality of these proteins in food
processing, means that General Mills will continue to import these
proteins regardless of import tariffs. This will inevitably pressure
consumer food prices higher on products designed to be economical
alternatives for lower income consumers. Simultaneously, stocks of NFDM
will rise regardless, as the root cause of the dairy oversupply problem
has not been addressed: government subsidies causing inefficient market
allocation of domestic dairy products. NFDM production is so healthy
that the United States is quickly becoming a major global supplier of
this commodity.
General Mills strongly opposes the proposed tariff-quota structure
for proteins, caseins, and caseinates. The impact of this legislation
would be negative for U.S. consumers, bad for international trade
relations, and ineffective in encouraging greater use of domestic dairy
products. Interestingly enough, recent developments in the industry
have seen the birth of what may be a robust domestic milk protein
sector--this of course is occurring in the absence of a tariff-rate
quota, and is the product of market demand for supply. Furthermore, in
its nonpartisan review of this issue released last year after more than
one year of investigation, the U.S. International Trade Commission
found no correlation between the use of these imported proteins and
domestic NFDM prices.
We appreciate the consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Shapiro
Washington Representative
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Washington, D.C., 20037
August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) appreciates this
opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee on Trade on why
H.R. 521 should not be included in the U.S. Trade Laws and
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills under consideration in this
session. The tariffs proposed under H.R. 521 would not protect the U.S.
dairy industry as that bill implies and would impose additional costs
to the U.S. consumer.
GMA is the world's largest association of food, beverage and
consumer product companies. With U.S. sales of more than 500 billion
dollars, GMA member companies employ more than 2.5 million workers in
all 50 states.
The premise of H.R. 521 is that the U.S. dairy industry needs
protection from the import of casein and milk protein concentrates.
This argument is erroneous on two levels. First, dairy prices are not
being affected by the import of MPC and casein. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture 2004 all-milk price paid to farmers was $16.04 per
hundredweight (cwt), while the average has been $13.57 cwt for the last
ten years. The forecasts for 2005 peg the all-milk prices as the third
highest on record and these prices are in no way negatively affected by
the import of MPCs (see ITC Investigation No. 332-453, May 2004
comments below). Second, with the exception of one relatively new
facility in Portales, New Mexico, no highly-filtered milk products are
currently produced in the U.S. These filtered milk products have
certain desirable qualities not present in dry skim milk products and
which could not be easily replaced by less filtered dairy inputs.
MPC and casein are both milk-derived ingredients that have been
processed to retain and concentrate their protein content but extract
certain other elements, such as ash or lactose (which some people are
allergic to). These protein-rich ingredients provide valuable
nutritional and technical properties to a wide variety of consumer
foods and nutrition products produced by GMA member companies,
including infant formula, sports drinks and ``power'' bars, diet
supplement products, snack foods, hot dogs, cheese products, as well as
many others.
Reasonable access to imports of MPC and casein is particularly
critical because there is, virtually, no domestic production of these
processed dairy ingredients in the United States. Yet milk producers
have amplified their call for tariff legislation, arguing that MPC
``circumvents'' dairy tariffs and displace domestically produced non-
fat dry milk.
From the United States International trade Commission 332 Report on
Imported Dairy Proteins Conclusions Regarding Substitutability:
The International Trade Commission carefully analyzed the issues
relating to the use of imported dairy proteins in its Section 332
Report, including the possible substitution of milk protein concentrate
(MPC) for skim milk powder (SMP). While the ITC report concludes that
imports of casein, caseinate and MPC may have substituted for
domestically produced milk proteins, like SMP, in some applications
because of their superior functionality and pricing, they find such
substitution to be limited. Specifically, the report states that on ``a
protein basis, imports of MPC, casein and caseinate may have displaced
318 million pounds of U.S.-produced milk proteins between 1998-2002.''
USITC, Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S.
Market, Investigation No. 332-453, USITC Publication 3692 (2004) at 7-
13. To put this in context, the report notes that the U.S. annually
produces over 170 billion pounds of milk, so that the 318 million
pounds of imported milk proteins that ``may'' have substituted for
domestically produced milk proteins accounts for just 1.27 percent of
U.S. milk protein production from 1998-2002. It is simply not credible
to argue that this degree of possible substitution is a significant
factor in the economics of the dairy market. Further, the ITC report
notes that:
``There appears to be little substitution between
imported and U.S.-produced milk proteins in the specialty nutrition
products.'' Id at 7-22; and
``To a lesser extent, manufacturers are substituting
imported casein and caseinate for SMP, WPC, UF milk, and ingredient
cheese in processed cheese products, other dairy foods, and bakery
products.'' Id at 7-22; and, finally
``It appears that the majority of this substitution
occurs in the production of processed cheese products where MPC
substitutes for SMP, UF milk, and ingredient cheese.'' Id at 7-22.
With respect to this final point, it appears to the U.S. Coalition
for Nutritional Ingredients that the ITC's assumptions concerning such
substitution overlook certain commercial realities. Namely,
1. High switching costs
The Report states that the fact that process cheese products
utilizing these alternative ingredients can be made in the same plants
using the same equipment ``may indicate that the switching costs of
producing processed cheese products with SMP versus MPC are minimal.''
(7-13, emphasis added.) However, the Report does not include any data
relating to switching costs. In fact, Coalition members have spent
millions of dollars over several years improving their products though
the use of MPC. Coalition members' manufacturing processes cannot
accommodate switching back and forth between MPC and SMP depending on
the relative cost and availability of those ingredients. If process
cheese manufactures were required to stop using MPC in their products,
they would incur several million dollars in costs to switch to new
formulas.
2. The technical superiority of MPC in process cheese.
The Report notes that 99% of the MPC used in process cheese
products is high protein MPC, with a protein percentage of 70% or
greater (91% MPC 70-79 and 8% MPC 80-89). (Table 7-3) Almost all of the
imported MPC used in the process cheese products produced by Coalition
members is high-protein MPC, produced through the ultrafiltration
process in New Zealand, and to a lesser extent in Australia. (Coalition
members have also begun using newly available high-protein,
ultrafiltered domestic MPC.) Low-protein MPC produced by blending is
not suitable for processed cheese applications. The high-protein, UF
MPC products used to manufacture process cheese have a protein
concentration double that of SMP, greater consistency, and low lactose
levels. For example, MPC-70 has a lactose content of 17% compared to
over 50% for SMP.
The ITC notes that high-protein MPC is technically superior to SMP
in process cheese products, making the following specific observations,
with which the Coalition agrees:
``Lactose is a problematic ingredient in a number of
dairy products. Therefore, alternative protein sources that can deliver
the desired protein without the lactose are appealing for the
production of products where excess lactose is a concern.'' (7-10)
``. . . industry and academic experts stressed the
importance of controlling the amount of lactose present during the
manufacturing of both natural and processed cheese. Excess lactose
reacts with water to form crystals, results in poor cooking and melting
properties, and over time, may alter the color, flavor and consistency
of the product.'' (7-10)
``. . . The use of MPC instead of SMP can improve the
efficiency of the production process and thereby lower total production
costs.'' (7-13)
The ITC recognizes that even if some manufacturers may
have reduced their purchases of SMP and other U.S. dairy proteins as
they developed formulas including MPC, they are not likely to reverse
that process, due to the technical superiority of MPC:
``However, while manufacturers may readily switch from
U.S.-produced to imported milk proteins, they are somewhat less likely
to switch from imported to U.S.-produced milk proteins. Barring
significant changes in relative prices, the superior functional
properties of imported milk proteins discourage switching to SMP, UF
milk, WPC or ingredient cheese from MPC.''
(7-22, emphasis added.) In other words, once a company has invested
in using a superior ingredient, it is far less likely to make another
significant investment to be able to use a less-desirable ingredient,
even if there is a price advantage. U.S. process cheese manufacturers,
and their customers, do not regard substituting a higher-priced,
inferior ingredient as a rational substitution.
3. The MPC used in process cheese is not subsidized.
The claims of the TRQ proponents that they need to be protected
from ``unfairly subsidized'' imported MPC are particularly inapt in the
case of process cheese. The high-protein MPC used in process cheese is
manufactured through the ultrafiltration process in New Zealand and
Australia, as noted above. As the Report clearly demonstrates in
Chapter 5, there are virtually no subsidies on the production of MPC in
New Zealand and very low subsidies in Australia. (See Table 5-5, which
shows a Producer Support Estimate of less than 1% for New Zealand,
compared to 44% to 60% for the U.S.)
Conclusion
GMA is opposed to any attempt to impose higher tariffs or
restrictive tariff-rate quotas on imports of MPC or casein. The U.S.
dairy industry is under no threat from substitution with imported
filtered milk products such as MPCs and casein. Dairy prices are at an
all-time high making any further protections of that industry
unnecessary. For these reasons, GMA would argue against such a bill in
any forum. Given that H.R. 521 has been placed in the Miscellaneous
Tariff Bill, we would also argue that this is a controversial bill,
traditionally not the kind of bill considered under suspension of the
rules.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association appreciates this opportunity
to present our views on this matter.
Mary Sophos
Senior Vice President, Chief Government Affairs Officer
Kerry Americas
Beloit, WI 53511
September 1, 2005
Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of
Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6354
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing in strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 521, a
bill that would impose highly damaging tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) on
U.S. imports of casein, caseinate and milk protein concentrates (MPCs),
in the pending Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB).
We, along with many companies, utilize these milk proteins to
produce a variety of food ingredients and other related products that
are valuable to our customers both in the U.S. and abroad. Our company
imports these milk proteins to help satisfy our customer needs in a
number of our manufactured products. In fact, if these tariffs were to
go into effect it would damage our ability to continue our growth as a
company that is headquartered in Wisconsin and employs over 1,000
people in that state alone, but also people in many more states where
we take pride in producing to meet our customers needs. We also export
our products, which is another reason why we are particularly concerned
about H.R. 521 because it may result in retaliation against the very
products we export not to mention other U.S. exporters.
We know the milk proteins sector has been studied in depth by the
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as recently as 2004. A fair
reading of the ITC report does not provide a foundation for the
imposition of legislation like H.R. 521. As you well know, this
independent unprecedented fact-finding investigation and the subsequent
report should serve as a basis to reject protectionism as it relates to
milk proteins. Furthermore, the trade and economic conditions in this
sector since the period that was studied (1998-2002) by the ITC further
drive home the point that protectionism is the wrong course.
I know there are many arguments that have been tossed around
regarding this issue on both sides. But, as a business executive that
manages competitive manufacturing in the U.S. for a global market, H.R.
521--if enacted--would be exactly what we do not need. It would cause
us significant damage and signal us that additional investment in
growth may not make sense. Why would anyone with the responsibility to
oversee U.S. trade policy want to knowingly significantly damage
competitive manufacturing and food ingredient production in America?
Such action would only harm the market for dairy-based ingredients and,
in the end, dairy farmers interested in supplying these growing
markets. I strongly urge you to not include H.R. 521 in the MTB and to
reject any efforts to impede U.S. trade in these milk proteins.
Stan McCarthy
President and CEO
Statement of Jaime Castaneda, National Milk Producers Federation,
Arlington, Virginia
Executive Summary
The fundamental cornerstone of federal policy toward the U.S. dairy
industry consists of the dairy price support program, operating in
conjunction with WTO-consistent restrictions on imports of dairy
products that permit the price support program to function in the
presence of a highly-distorted and subsidized world market. Milk
protein products, consisting of milk protein concentrate and casein,
constitute a loophole in these import restrictions. As a result of this
loophole, U.S. imports and use of these milk protein products have
grown rapidly over the past decade, driven by foreign subsidies, both
domestic and export subsidies, and by foreign monopoly exporting
advantages.
In recent years, rapid growth in U.S. milk protein imports
economically displaced an equivalent quantity of domestically-produced
milk proteins, creating a large, artificial surplus of nonfat dry milk
that has been sold to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) under the
price support program. This displacement eroded the effectiveness of
the price support program, leading to significantly lower prices and
incomes for U.S. dairy farmers and increased cost for U.S. taxpayers.
The fact is that milk protein is milk protein. When additional
amounts of milk protein are permitted to evade the underlying intent of
our dairy import policies, the natural consequence is that
domestically-produced milk proteins will be displaced. This is exactly
what occurred during the recently past period of extremely low prices
as evidenced by the close correlation between CCC purchases and
additional imported milk proteins during that time period. The U.S.
milk protein import loophole has essentially converted the U.S.
domestic dairy price support program into an additional subsidy for the
already subsidized foreign manufacturers of milk protein products and
for domestic manufacturers of dairy products, at the expense of U.S.
dairy farmers and taxpayers.
Economic analysis shows that U.S. milk protein imports will
continue to grow and contribute to the volatility of producers'
incomes. This continued trend will further depress U.S. farm prices and
incomes during times of price troughs, rendering the dairy price
support program increasingly ineffective, and exacerbating the U.S.
dairy industry's nonfat milk solids component surplus which often
accrues during low price periods. We estimate that projected growth in
U.S. imports of milk protein products will erode dairy farm prices and
lead to a cumulative loss of U.S. dairy farm income of about $2.7
billion dollars between 2005 and 2012. This economic situation is not
sustainable and is undermining the stability of the U.S. dairy industry
and threatening its long-term ability to be a reliable supplier to one
of the world's largest markets for milk and dairy products.
In order to rectify this situation, NMPF has worked with Members of
Congress to propose legislation to address this tariff loophole (H.R.
521 and S. 1417). These bills would create tariff-rate quotas for
imported milk protein concentrate and casein products in order to allow
a certain level of existing imports to continue, but to get a handle on
explosive future growth of these imports. Despite the current favorable
prices dairy producers are enjoying, milk prices are notoriously
cyclical. This legislation is urgently needed to avert subjecting dairy
producers to the devastating price circumstances they faced in 2002 and
early 2003, which contributed to the extremely erratic prices of the
past few years. This measure is in the interest of the U.S. dairy
industry as a whole, since no part of the industry is well-served by
the extremely volatile milk prices we have seen of late.
Introduction
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is the national farm
commodity organization that represents dairy farmers and the dairy
cooperative marketing associations they own and operate throughout the
United States. The U.S. dairy industry is the second largest
agricultural commodity subsector, as measured by farm cash receipts,
generating an average of $24.3 billion in annual farm receipts from
sales of milk during 2003-2004. The retail value of dairy products made
from milk produced in the U.S. is estimated at approximately $90
billion last year. There were 70,209 commercial dairy farms in the U.S.
in 2003, each generating an estimated average of 16.7 jobs at the dairy
farm and dairy processing plant level, for an estimated national total
of 1,170,000 domestic jobs, not counting jobs at other levels in the
agricultural and food industry, such as input suppliers, distribution,
retailing and food service. By any measure, the U.S. dairy industry is
a major domestic industry.
The United States is also one of the world's largest and most
attractive markets for the sale of milk and dairy products. Imports of
many dairy products into the U.S. market are restricted under various
tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), whose imposition is due to long-standing
federal policy to operate the dairy price support program as the
fundamental farm policy safety net program for U.S. milk producers.
Without import restrictions, this policy could not be effectuated,
given the significant distortions and subsidies that characterize the
world market for dairy products.
However, under the World Trade Organization Agreement on
Agriculture, negotiated in the Uruguay Round, the United States
significantly expanded access to its domestic dairy market and
relinquished its previous ability under Section 22 of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act to impose import restrictions in reaction to potential
loopholes, changing market conditions and technological advances.
During the ten-year period of 1995 through 2004, U.S. imports of total
milk solids (milkfat plus nonfat milk solids) in all dairy products
almost doubled, from about 475 million pounds to about 930 million
pounds. During this same period, the share of total imported milk
solids that were imported in the form of dairy products within tariff-
rate quotas declined, from 32 percent to 25 percent.
U.S. Imports of Milk Protein Products are Increasing on a Long-Term
Basis
A major class of dairy imports that has been growing without
restriction during the past decade has been milk protein products.
These consist of milk protein concentrate (MPC), HTS 0404.90.10, which
U.S. Customs defines as containing between 40 percent and 90 percent
milk protein; milk protein concentrate, HTS 3501.10.10, which Customs
defines as containing at least 90 percent milk protein; casein, HTS
3501.10.50; and caseinates, HTS 3501.90.60. None of these four products
is subject to TRQs when imported into the United States. Casein is
imported free of duty, while the other three products are subject to a
negligible duty of $.0037 per kilogram, which is equivalent to about
one-tenth of one percent, on an ad valorem basis.
Figure 1, below, shows annual imports of these four milk protein
products during 1993 through 2004, and forecasts for 2005, based on
imports during the first five months of the year. Data are from the
U.S. Bureau of the Census, as reported by the USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service. MPC imported under 0404.90.10 could contain milk protein
contents of 40 to 70 percent, and is designated as MPC-low, while MPC
imported under 3501.10.10 is assumed to contain an average milk protein
content of 90 percent, and is designated as MPC-high.
Imports of these milk protein products, particularly MPC-low, have
clearly been growing over this period. Imports of this product
experienced a one-year drop in 2001 due to severe supply constraints
and restrictions on imports from the European Union in the wake of the
foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (see Figure 2 below) and to possible
reaction to highly visible efforts by NMPF to curb these imports.
Following that, import levels again began to grow in 2002 before
becoming subject to outside market conditions for a time.
As seen in the graph, import levels in the first quarter of 2005
have spiked compared to 2004 levels. This has occurred despite tight
world supplies of milk protein, indicating a likely return to the
general trend of increasing import quantities of these products. This
development concurs with NMPF's repeated previous statements concerning
the fact that, although MPC and casein imports had temporarily declined
for a time, that state of the market was by no means permanent. Rather,
as we are currently seeing, the overall trend of the past decade has
been for these import levels to climb--often drastically. This is
precisely why a long-term solution, such as H.R. 521, is needed to
address this loophole. Better to act now to head off a problem than to
see dairy prices plummet to record lows again in the future if Congress
does not take measures to address this situation.
Moreover, in a letter (available for subsequent submission) dated
April 28, 2003, the U.S. customs identified a number of cases in which
imported MPC is a blended product based on 90 percent skim milk powder.
Also noteworthy is a letter that the National Milk Producers Federation
sent to the ITC on October 4, 2001 (also available for subsequent
submission) wherein we noted that a market basket survey of several
large chain grocery stores revealed that all surveyed stores carried
cheese products that contained MPC as a listed ingredient. Although
this survey was limited in scope, concentrating on the Washington, DC
area and a few selected stores in the Midwest, the findings
conclusively showed how wide-spread the use of MPC is, even in the
production of standardized cheese products.
Casein and caseinates are not produced commercially in the United
States because they can be imported at a lower protein-equivalent price
than domestically-produced milk proteins. MPC-high and MPC-low are
produced commercially in the United States, but operations can not be
expanded because the same products, whether they are skim milk powder
or some other form of milk protein concentrate, can be imported at a
lower price. This, in turn, is due to the fact that the production and
marketing of these products by other countries is largely subsidized
and because we do not have a specific subsidy program for skim milk
that allows U.S. manufacturers to dump their product into world markets
such as those in Europe, Canada and New Zealand.
Figure 2 shows the country of origin for imports of the four milk
protein products during 1998-2004. New Zealand and the European Union
account for the large majority of all products in each of these years.
New Zealand markets these products through monopoly state trading,
which allows it to cross-subsidize among markets and products. The
European Union operates a subsidy program for the production of casein
and caseinates, which allows it to export large quantities of these
products below its costs of production, just as its direct export
subsidies allow it to export large quantities of butter, milk powder
and cheese below cost. The EU's program for aid to the production of
casein and caseinates also allows it to export blends of these products
with skim milk powder and whey as milk protein concentrate, despite the
fact that the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States impose
higher tariffs for skim milk powder.
As discussed above, the large drop in MPC-low imports from the EU
in 2001, following the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, can be clearly
noted in Figure 2.
Canada and various eastern European countries, which export smaller
quantities of milk protein products to the United States, also use
export subsidies to do so. In Canada's case, the subsidies in question
have operated outside the sanction of the World Trade Organization.
These distortions created by monopoly advantages and by domestic and
export subsidies are responsible for making MPC and casein available at
a lower cost to U.S. purchasers. The very reason these products are so
financially attractive to processors and manufacturers in the U.S. is
because other countries have orchestrated their dairy programs to make
them artificially affordable. Therefore, advocating a ``free-market''
approach where importers can purchase whatever product is the lowest
cost ingredient essentially advocates undercutting the U.S. commitment
to minimal domestic market intervention and supports a global system of
artificially-low offered prices.
The primary reason why MPC and casein are being imported into the
United States in large and increasing quantities is because, for
reasons addressed above, they provide food processors with a lower-cost
source of the dairy components that they would otherwise procure from
domestic milk producers. The real concern is that many companies may
initially convert because of the price differential. However, once they
have invested the necessary resources in restructuring their operations
to accommodate the use of imported milk protein products, there is a
strong incentive to continue using those products due to the additional
costs associated with varying the protein source. As more manufacturers
see their competition converting to using cheaper and subsidized
imported milk protein products, they will face extreme pressures to
convert to these artificially discounted products in order to remain
competitive. This will lead to the increasing development of processes
that rely on MPC and casein, not because domestic sources of milk
protein would not suffice; but rather because different systems are
required to process different protein delivery forms.
Despite this tendency, the root cause of this increasing trend away
from milk proteins produced in the U.S. is not the discovery of new
products that can only be made with imported milk protein products.
Rather, the underlying cause is the comparative affordability of these
subsidized imported products as compared to domestic alternatives. It
is the choice to avoid the appropriately priced domestic protein
products that is spurring the majority of the decisions to convert to
MPC/casein, which in turn may then lead to the development of
additional uses tailored to these products.
The National Milk Producers Federation does not dispute that a
limited number of products do now require the specific properties of
MPC-high or casein. The heavy subsidization of those products and the
development of new uses of those products to take advantage of a loop-
hole in the U.S. tariff system, however, are what are at issue.
Moreover, the need for the majority of these products is at best
unclear and more likely heavily dependent on artificially low prices.
The importation of these products is clearly a ``windfall'' to
processors that is directly undermining U.S. laws that protect U.S.
dairy producers' income.
Despite what importers and advocates of these products may say, the
reality of the situation is that the world markets for milk proteins,
as well as other milk products, are extremely distorted. Those who
encourage one-way free trade and argue that U.S. producers are
uncompetitive because of our domestic support failed to note that other
countries are competitive solely because of trade distorting programs.
Second, substitutability is not an issue. The large demand for milk
proteins that are currently being imported is perfectly sustainable
using U.S. skim milk. The bulk of the demand for these products arises
from their artificial affordability, not from their special properties.
Moreover, in the select instances where manufacturers may feel that
their product does indeed demand certain properties supplied by MPC-
high or casein, the U.S. market is capable of meeting this need,
provided the manufacturers pay the fair market price for the products.
All imported proteins are either already being produced in the United
States or can be produced in a fairly rapid matter.
U.S. Milk Protein Imports are Displacing Domestically-Produced Milk
Proteins
Imported milk protein products are used largely in the production
of dairy foods, primarily cheese, as well as other food products. Their
importation therefore displaces domestically-produced milk protein,
which is manufactured into nonfat dry milk, or skim milk powder, the
traditional product into which excess skim milk solids are manufactured
in the U.S. dairy industry, and sold in that form to the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) under the dairy price support program's
standing offer to purchase.
The data in Figure 3, above, show that milk protein imports into
the United States are growing in the long run, as shown by the
explosive 59% growth in the amount of proteins coming into the United
States in the form of MPC, casein and caseinates between 1993 and 2004.
Growth in the level of total MPC, casein and caseinates imports between
1993 and 2004 is even higher at 67%. The data above also show that milk
protein imports are growing not just in absolute terms but also as a
portion of the protein supply in the large and growing U.S. dairy
industry. Imported milk proteins have grown from approximately 50
percent to about 60 percent of the milk proteins in domestically-
produced nonfat dry milk. This growth in milk protein imports, in both
an absolute and a relative sense, is having increasingly negative
impacts on the domestic industry.
Figure 4, on the following page, compares the growth in the volume
of milk protein imports since 1993 with the level of milk proteins
displaced in the domestic market, as measured by purchases of nonfat
dry milk by the Commodity Credit Corporation under the dairy price
support program. To facilitate the comparison, milk protein import
growth is expressed in terms of the equivalent volumes of nonfat dry
milk that would supply the same volumes and types of milk protein as
are contained in imported milk protein products.
CCC purchases were small at the beginning of this period but have
since grown at a rate that closely matches the rate of milk protein
import growth. The only year which deviates somewhat from this pattern
is 2002, when supplies temporarily outstripped consumption, which was
dampened by the recession and the events of 9/11. As shown, the basic
correlation has reestablished itself subsequently. Additionally, more
recently in 2005, the relationship again experiences a bit of an
anomaly as import levels continue to climb while CCC purchases are
minimal due to the current extremely tight world supply of dairy
proteins which has allowed for the export of sizable amounts of nonfat
dry milk from the U.S.
A word of clarification should be interjected at this point,
regarding the issue of displacement of domestically-produced milk
proteins by imports. In discussions of this issue, it is sometimes
claimed that imported milk protein products, for example casein, do not
substitute for domestic milk protein products such as nonfat dry milk
because the two products do not have the same physical properties in
food processing applications. As a result, nonfat dry milk cannot be
directly substituted for casein in a number of applications. However,
this type of consideration deals with the issue of physical
substitutability, not economic substitution.
In this sense, milk proteins imported in all product forms displace
domestically-produced milk proteins, which are commonly manufactured
into nonfat dry milk when displaced. U.S. milk proteins could be, and
would be manufactured into any and all forms for which domestic uses
exist, including all products currently imported, if imported milk
proteins did not benefit from subsidies which reduce their prices or if
U.S. mil proteins were able to receive corresponding subsidies to match
imported protein prices.
U.S. Milk Protein Imports Have Seriously Eroded U.S. Dairy Farm Prices
and Income
The impact of import replacement in the U.S. milk proteins market
is negative and substantial for U.S. dairy farmers. It creates excess
supply of U.S. nonfat milk solids and depresses domestic prices of
dairy products that are affected by the supply and demand for milk
proteins and nonfat milk solids, primarily nonfat dry milk. This, in
turn, depresses prices for milk received by farmers in the United
States.
By way of explanation: In the United States, most dairy farmers are
paid for the milk they produce through the market regulatory mechanism
of marketing orders, operated either by the federal government or by
individual states. Approximately 70 percent of all milk produced is
normally marketed under ten federal milk marketing orders covering
specific geographical areas. Under a federal milk marketing order,
farmers are paid a weighted-average, or ``blend'' price based upon the
proportionate use of the milk that supplies the order area in different
dairy products. Separate use classes, and corresponding separate
prices, are utilized to reflect milk used to produce fluid milk
products (Class I); soft manufactured products such as yogurt, cottage
cheese, ice cream and creams (Class II); hard cheese and whey (Class
III); and butter and nonfat dry milk powder (Class IV).
Minimum prices that milk buyers must pay under federal milk
marketing orders for milk used to produce these different product
classes are determined monthly using formulas that incorporate reported
prices for Class III and Class IV products (cheese, whey, butter and
nonfat dry milk), as well as milk yields and processing costs
reflective of producing those products. In any particular month, prices
for Class II, Class III and Class IV milk are the same in all federal
milk marketing orders, while prices for Class I milk vary
geographically based on transportation costs, milk supply and milk
consumption considerations. The Class I price for a month is
essentially the higher of the Class III and Class IV prices during a
period preceding the month plus a fixed, geographically-specific
``Class I differential.'' The Class II price for the month is
essentially the Class IV price during a period preceding the month plus
$.70 per hundred pounds of milk.
Several states, notably California, maintain state marketing orders
that function in a manner similar to federal orders. Approximately 20
percent of the nation's milk is priced under state orders. Farmers
marketing the small remaining portion of milk that is not regulated and
priced under federal or state milk marketing orders nevertheless
receive prices that are closely correlated with marketing order prices
because market forces act to ensure that prices cannot fall far out of
geographic alignment. Therefore, all U.S. dairy farmers are paid prices
that are directly determined by prices for cheese, whey, butter and
nonfat dry milk in the U.S. market. The prices for these four products
are, in turn, determined by the forces of supply and demand for those
products and are directly affected by imported dairy products.
Although the dairy price support program maintains a certain
minimum price level for these products in the marketplace, that level
of support is freely variable through regulatory action in the case of
nonfat dry milk, for which markets are most directly affected by
imported milk protein products. The Secretary of Agriculture has the
authority to adjust the CCC purchase prices for butter and nonfat dry
milk, as long as, together, the two prices are equivalent, on a milk
basis, to the statutorily-established price support level. During
periods when one of these products is in surplus but the other is not,
prices of the product in surplus fall to the CCC purchase price level
and the CCC purchases quantities of the product, while prices of the
other product are maintained by market forces above the support level.
When purchases of the surplus commodity are excessive during such
periods of ``component surplus,'' the Secretary of Agriculture has
sometimes acted to reduce the CCC purchase price of that commodity and
increased the CCC purchase price of the other product that is not in
surplus. Due to the structure of the U.S. milk pricing system, just
described, these ``butter-powder tilts'', as they are termed, result in
reduced prices and incomes for dairy farmers.
As part of its 2004 report entitled the Conditions of Competition
for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. Market, the International Trade
Commission (ITC) studied just such an occurrence. According to the ITC,
MPC and casein imports ``contributed about 35 percent to the growth in
CCC stocks during 1996-2002.'' (pages 9-3, 9-15). In response to a
buildup in CCC purchases and inventories of nonfat dry milk as a result
of this import replacement in the domestic milk proteins market, the
former Secretary of Agriculture made two ``tilts'' over the course of a
year and half. On May 31, 2001, the Secretary announced a reduction in
the CCC purchase price for nonfat dry milk, from $1.0032 per pound to
$0.90 per pound, and on November 15, 2002, the Secretary announced a
further reduction to $0.80 per pound. The report's findings supported
the linkage between CCC stock levels and the tilt measures, stating
that ``according to USDA officials, tilt adjustments were made in
response to growth in CCC stocks and the mounting purchase and storage
costs to the Federal budget.'' (page 9-12).
Unfortunately, due to lack of documentation at USDA concerning the
precise criteria used to determine whether and by how much the tilts
should be made, the ITC was unable to state with certainty that the
heightened CCC stock levels due to imports had led to the decision to
implement the two tilts (page 9-17). Given the ITC's findings on each
matter individually, however, the relationship between these two events
is quite clear.
Figure 5, below, shows the results of a simulation analysis of the
intermediate-term impact of these two butter-powder tilts on U.S. dairy
producer prices and incomes. This analysis simulates dairy product
prices, and the corresponding milk prices and farm incomes, that would
have occurred had the tilts not taken place, and compares those with
actual prices and incomes. Given the relatively short time horizon, it
does not model the impacts of changes in supply and demand in response
to the estimated price changes.
As shown, we estimate that these two tilts reduced U.S. dairy farm
incomes by about two and one-quarter of a billion dollars and largely
set the stage for the prolonged period of low milk prices throughout
2002 and the first half of 2003, when milk prices set new 25-lows for
months at a stretch.
A particularly devastating aspect of such component surplus-induced
price erosion is that supply cannot adjust in a straightforward
fashion, as it can when an entire commodity is in surplus. Milk is
produced with the two basic components, milkfat and nonfat milk solids,
in relative proportions that do not vary much at all over time and
under varying price scenarios. When the relative supply-demand
situation for the two dairy components diverge over time, as they are
currently doing in response to the growth in milk protein imports,
there ensues a situation of growing price instability and market
disruption that is not sustainable.
U.S. Milk Protein Imports Will Continue to Erode U.S. Dairy Farm Prices
and Income
Based on simple time series analysis, which aggregates all causes
of change in U.S. milk protein imports, including price trends, we
estimate that annual imports of MPC and casein will rise to the
equivalent of 1.3 billion pounds of nonfat dry milk by the year 2012,
from a level of approximately 950 million pounds in 2004. This
projected growth in milk protein imports over the next eight years is
equivalent to more than 300 million pounds of domestically-produced
nonfat dry milk, or 3.8 billion pounds of raw milk. This is over and
above the ``base levels'' of displacement of production by milk protein
imports in 2004, which is equivalent to 11.3 billion pounds of domestic
milk production, representing the production of almost 600,000 cows of
2004 average productivity and more than 4,400 dairy farms of average
size in 2004.
This continued growth in U.S. milk protein imports will likely
impose significant pressure on the price support program, following the
current period of unusually high international prices for nonfat dry
milk, and ultimately lead to resumption of significant quantities of
CCC purchases that would have the potential of rendering the price
support program unmanageable. We have serious concerns that the dairy
industry's cornerstone safety net policy, the dairy price support
program, cannot remain stable and viable if burdened with removals of
an additional 300 million pounds of nonfat dry milk per year. At
current CCC prices, such additional purchases would cost the U.S.
government about $250 million per year.
Using a simple economic model that takes into account the
adjustments in domestic milk supply in response to price changes, we
estimate that this projected growth in U.S. imports of milk protein
products will further erode dairy farm prices and lead to a cumulative
loss of U.S. dairy farm income of about $2.7 billion dollars between
2005 and 2012.
In Closing
The National Milk Producers Federation appreciates the opportunity
to present its views to the House Ways and Means Committee with respect
to the need for H.R. 521, the Milk Import Tariff Equity Act, in order
to address the loophole in our tariff structure that imported milk
protein products are currently exploiting. H.R. 521 would create
tariff-rate quotas for these products, allowing a controlled amount to
enter each year, but imposing a ceiling of sorts on the total quantity
permitted to impact our domestic market--identical to the way the vast
majority of traditional dairy products are dealt with in order not to
undermine the U.S. dairy price support program and to ensure the health
of the U.S. dairy industry.
[By permission of the Chairman:]
New Zealand Embassy
Washington, DC 20008
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw
The New Zealand Government notes that HR521, a bill to impose
tariff rate quotas on certain casein, caseinates and milk protein
concentrates, has been proposed for inclusion in this year's
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. New Zealand is a significant supplier of
milk protein concentrates, caseinates and casein to the United States
and the creation of a tariff quota for these products would be
detrimental to New Zealand's trading interests.
The current access regime reflects an overall balanced outcome of
rights and obligations, as a result of negotiation and compromise by
all WTO members during the Uruguay Round. It would be regrettable to
upset this balance at a time when the United States and New Zealand
(and other WTO members) are engaged in negotiating comprehensive and
ambitious reforms to the global agricultural trading system in the Doha
Round, to the benefit of both our agriculture industries.
Additionally, the May 2004 report of the U.S. International Trade
Commission ``Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the
U.S. Market'' showed that imports of milk protein concentrates did not
impact on domestic farm-level prices for milk proteins and that there
was only minimal impact on domestic milk protein production.
We therefore respectfully ask that HR521 not be included in the
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. My staff and I are available to provide
further information or respond to any questions members of your
committee may have on this issue.
John Wood
Ambassador of New Zealand
Novartis Corporation
Washington, DC 20004
August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6354
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of Novartis Nutrition Corporation (NNC), I am writing to
urge your Subcommittee on Trade to oppose efforts to include H.R. 521,
the ``Milk Import Tariff Equity Act,'' in the Miscellaneous Tariff
Bill. We strongly object to H.R. 521 because it would impose a new and
completely unjustified tariff-rate quota regime on imports of certain
milk proteins, caseins and caseinate products, an action that would
have very serious and harmful consequences for our company, and the
patients we serve with our medical nutrition products. We urge the
immediate deletion of this measure from the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill,
and we will oppose its provisions if introduced in any other form.
The arguments used to justify this legislation in the past have
been shown to be invalid. A May 2004 U.S. International Trade
Commission study (Investigation 332-453, Conditions of Competition for
Milk Protein Products in the U.S. Market), in response to a request by
the Senate Finance Committee, concluded after a year-long review, that
imports of milk protein concentrates, caseins and caseinates have had
no direct impact on the farm milk prices paid to U.S. producers.
Moreover, this bill is being proposed at a time when U.S. dairy
producers are receiving some of the highest prices ever for their milk.
We believe legislation imposing tariff-rate quotas would jeopardize
the supply of, and substantially increase costs for, imported milk
protein concentrates (MPCs), casein, and caseinates. For these reasons,
Novartis has consistently articulated opposition to the substance of
such legislation, and we have vigorously questioned its justification.
Congress did not pass similar legislative efforts in the past, and H.R.
521's inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, or any other
legislation, is inappropriate.
Novartis Nutrition Corporation is a division of Novartis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. St.
Louis Park, MN is the North American Headquarters of the division and
home to manufacturing, warehouse operations, and corporate offices. In
addition, our Minnesota headquarters serves as our Global Research and
Development operations for Nutrition, In all, we employ over 750 people
at this location. NNC manufactures a variety of medical enteral
nutrition products that can be tube-fed or taken as oral supplements,
most designed as part of overall treatment plans in a variety of
disease states, including: diabetes, renal, pulmonary, and cancer
treatments. We manufacture products for adult and pediatric use.
An essential component of our nutritional products is protein. The
only dairy protein with the necessary functional characteristics for
use in enteral formulas is caseinate. Other sources of dairy protein,
such as fluid milk or nonfat dry milk, are not appropriate for this
use. The following points explain the key reasons for the use of
caseinate in our nutritional products:
1. Thermal process stability: Caseinates are stable under the
thermal process conditions necessary to render a liquid product
commercially stable. Egg white protein would coagulate under these
conditions, resulting in a product that would not be deliverable via a
feeding tube.
2. Low viscosity: Caseinates provide a low viscosity liquid
product, which is essential when the product is delivered using a small
diameter feeding tube. It may be possible to create a liquid using
other high quality proteins, such as those derived from soy or meat;
however, the resulting liquid would be of too high a viscosity to
permit flow through feeding tubes.
3. Emulsion stability: Caseinates are excellent stabilizers of
liquid complete nutrition products. The use of meat proteins and
certain soy proteins in liquid tube feedings will, over time, result in
the oil separating from the bulk phase, resulting in a product that
appears spoiled, or defective.
4. Allergenicity and tolerance: Caseinates are lactose free. Fluid
milk or nonfat dry milk, a domestic source of dairy protein, contains
lactose, a milk sugar to which certain individuals are intolerant. In
addition, other individuals are allergic to products containing egg. In
other cases, individuals cannot consume meat products for religious
reasons.
To our knowledge, suitable caseinates are either not manufactured
in the United States, or manufactured in such low quantities that
domestic production would not offset the negative impact of a tariff-
rate quota. We have no alternative source of supply in the economic
quantities necessary to make our nutritional products.
H.R. 521 could result in cost increases to NNC of at least $5.1
million. The narrowing and increased cost of supply ingredients would
result in increased production costs that would have to be absorbed
internally and/or passed on to consumers and patients--increasing the
costs of essential therapies for individuals requiring medical
nutrition interventions.
A tariff-rate quota applied to caseinates and MPCs, as provided in
H.R. 521, would cause significant and unnecessary economic hardship to
the medical nutrition industry and the patients who benefit from its
life-saving therapies. We will either have to absorb the increased
costs, pass them on to customers and patients, and/or engage in a
lengthy process to reformulate a significant number of products in a
search for alternative protein sources. This will cost millions of
dollars and will drain resources away from developing new, innovative
nutrition therapies. Even if we can succeed in finding suitable
alternative ingredients, it is very unlikely that these alternative
sources of protein will be domestically produced dairy products such as
nonfat dry milk.
We appreciate your consideration of this important and very urgent
matter. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact me in our D.C. office.
Tracy Haller
Executive Director, International & Public Affairs
RetireSafe
Oakton, VA 22124
August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of RetireSafe's 367,000 senior citizen supporters across
America, including more than 25,000 in Florida, we strongly urge your
Subcommittee on Trade to reject efforts to include H.R. 521
(controversial legislation to impose new tariff-rate quotas on imported
milk protein concentrate (MPC), casein, and caseinates) in the
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. H.R. 521 would especially harm older
Americans, and RetireSafe will continue to oppose any measure that
contains its harmful provisions.
Seniors are living longer, healthier lives for many reasons,
including today's availability and affordability of critical
nutritional products that utilize imported MPC, casein, and caseinate.
Supporters of H.R. 521 would pile tariffs on these essential imported
ingredients, in a punitive effort to price their use out of the market,
even though there is no good substitute for them. Non-fat dry milk has
never been a feasible replacement for MPC, casein, or caseinates in
these popular and nutritional foods and drinks. The high lactose
content, as well as the instability of the protein content, eliminates
the possibility that non-fat dry milk could be used instead of the
imported milk proteins. Thus, not only would the tariffs contained in
H.R. 521 impose a ``food tax'' on consumers, punishing seniors on fixed
incomes the most of all, it would also spell the demise of key
nutritional products that the elderly depend on daily.
From the hundreds of common grocery items that make use of these
irreplaceable milk protein imports to provide sought-after nutrient
levels, consistency, and good taste, to senior-specific products like
Ensure, and more specialized, life-saving medical drinks used in
hospitals and nursing homes, the very ingredients H.R. 521 would make
unavailable or unaffordable are absolutely critical to America's senior
citizens.
For these reasons, RetireSafe has consistently opposed H.R. 521 and
other similar measures. Any vote regarding any legislation containing
the controversial provisions of H.R. 521 will be considered a ``Key
Vote'' by RetireSafe and the senior-supporters we represent, and any
such vote will be heavily weighted in any RetireSafe ranking of
Congress. Again, we strongly urge you, and the Subcommittee on Trade
which you Chair, to reject the ill-advised effort to include H.R. 521
in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
Charles G. Hardin
President
U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients
Washington DC, 20005
September 2, 2005
Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients (the ``Coalition'')
is a group of more than 40 taxpayer, consumer and senior citizen
organizations, as well as trade associations and food companies that
strongly oppose H.R. 521, the Milk Import Tariff Equity Act. This
controversial legislation attempts to impose tariff-rate quotas (TRQs)
on imported milk protein concentrate (MPC), casein and caseinates,
which would lead to increased costs on a wide range of specialized
consumer products.
The Coalition urges you to reject the inclusion of H.R. 521 in this
year's miscellaneous tariff bill. This trade vehicle is traditionally
reserved for non-controversial bills. In the case of H.R. 521, the
economic and policy issues are highly divisive and strongly contended.
For example, enactment of H.R. 521 would create a regressive food tax,
and would be a blatant violation of World Trade Organization (WTO)
rules and U.S. international trade obligations. For these and other
substantive reasons, the Coalition would vigorously oppose any
legislative vehicle incorporating H.R. 521, including the miscellaneous
trade bill, as well as any expedited process for consideration of such
a vehicle. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee on Trade to not include
H.R. 521 in the miscellaneous tariff bill.
MPC, casein and caseinates are technologically sophisticated
ingredients that are tailored to meet manufacturers' requirements.
Unlike nonfat dry milk (NFDM) which contains lactose and low and
varying levels of protein, MPC, casein and caseinate can be used in a
wide range of specialized products to meet the market demand for
products that contain little or no lactose, and have high and
consistent levels of protein. MPC, casein and caseinates are not
interchangeable with NFDM; they are different products, with distinct
characteristics and unique applications.
Currently, these proteins enter the U.S. with minimal duties and
are important ingredients in a variety of popular consumer goods and
specialty foods that Americans enjoy each and every day including:
processed cheese products, coffee creamers, convenience foods, frozen
dinners, geriatric drinks, hypoallergenic infant formulas, sports bars,
weight-loss beverages and nutritional drinks. These proteins are also
used in many medical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, animal feed and
industrial products. Adding new tariff barriers would increase costs to
U.S. users of these dairy ingredients. With the domestic market for
these proteins significantly larger than domestic production,
manufacturers would have no choice but to import the ingredients, pay
the higher price, and pass the increased cost onto consumers.
H.R. 521 is Highly Controversial
This issue of raising tariffs on milk protein ingredients has been
before Congress for many years and has caused much heated debate on
Capitol Hill. To obtain an independent analysis of the situation, the
Senate Finance Chairman requested an International Trade Commission
(ITC) investigation into the economics of imported milk proteins over
the period of 1998 to 2002. In May 2004, the ITC released a report on
its year-long research. This document is the most exhaustive,
authoritative and objective study of the matter. It supports most of
the Coalition's arguments and sets forth no basis for new tariffs on
imported dairy proteins. Despite the ITC's findings, supporters of the
TRQ continue to urge legislators to enact H.R. 521. Simply put, H.R.
521 is highly controversial and including this bill in the
miscellaneous tariff bill could jeopardize the expedited process that
has traditionally benefited this legislation.
Foreign Government Practices Are Not the Culprit
H.R. 521 supporters maintain that foreign government practices and
trade policies are the major factor driving milk protein imports.
Specifically, they argue that large subsidies given to European Union
(EU) producers hinder the ability for U.S. producers to compete with
imports and preclude the development of a U.S. casein, caseinates and
MPC industry.
In its report the ITC rejects the basic premise of this argument in
noting that ``if price leadership exists in the U.S. MPC market, it is
exercised by the Oceania countries.'' \1\ Further, the ITC report
states that due to ``dairy policy changes in the EU, it is unlikely
that the conditions that contributed to the increase in imports from
1998-2000 will be repeated in the future.'' \2\ In fact, the most
recent data backs up the ITC's analysis, as imports of low protein
``blended'' MPC from the EU have disappeared. Currently, 90% of the
imported milk proteins come from Australia and New Zealand, where there
is no government intervention in the dairy markets. Moreover, the vast
majority of these imports contain at least 70 percent protein, and as
such are not substitutes for NFDM, while what MPC is now being imported
from the EU is product containing 80 percent or more protein that does
not receive export subsidies. Furthermore, what production aid that did
exist for casein in the EU has been virtually eliminated since 2003
rendering that program irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conditions of Competition for Milk Proteins in the U.S. Market,
Investigation No. 332-453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004, 9-4
\2\ Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S.
Market, Investigation No. 332-453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004,
xxix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, U.S. MPC commercial production has begun in Portales,
New Mexico without a U.S. subsidy; dispelling any idea that the U.S.
producers are not able to compete against imports. The plant in
Portales is profitably responding to the market demand for MPC and is
running at full capacity. As a result of its success, a second plant is
being developed in Arizona to meet market demand, and when both plants
are operational (not to mention the prospect of additional capacity)
nearly half of U.S. domestic demand will be met by U.S. domestic
production--a dramatic change from just over 2 years ago.
There is no U.S. Trade Law ``Loophole``
TRQ supporters argue that imports of milk protein are circumventing
U.S. trade laws by entering through a ``loophole'' in the U.S. tariff
schedule. However, the ITC specifically refuted the ``loophole''
argument noting that both Congress and the President had carefully
considered the tariff treatment of casein, caseinates and MPCs. Imports
of these products have never been subject to Section 22 quotas
following formal investigations. In 1984, long before the Uruguay Round
negotiations, Congress created specific tariff lines to account for
MPCs, that were not subject to quota. Furthermore, in 2003, U.S.
Customs found that imported MPCs, casein and caseinates did not
circumvent nonfat dry milk TRQs, and were correctly classified under
non-quota provisions.
H.R. 521 Violates U.S. Trade Commitments
Increasing tariffs on MPC, casein and caseinates would violate our
WTO obligations and the U.S. Free Trade Agreement with Australia. In
these trade pacts, the U.S. has agreed to maintain a certain level of
duties. If the U.S. unilaterally decides to raise its bound tariffs,
Australia and other countries supplying these dairy proteins to the
U.S. market must be compensated or they have the right to retaliate by
imposing trade sanctions on U.S. exports.
In addition to the economic effects of compensation and/or
retaliation, the U.S. would lose its credibility to negotiate reduced
trade barriers in the WTO Doha Development Agenda. As a leader in
advocating free trade, it would be fundamentally inconsistent for the
U.S. to erect any new trade barriers. Supporting H.R. 521 is contrary
to U.S. trade principles and would undermine our mission to liberalize
trade in the WTO Doha Round and future trade agreements.
Milk Protein Imports Do Not Affect Domestic Milk Prices
Proponents of the TRQ argue that U.S. imports of MPC, casein and
caseinates depress milk prices. However, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture 2004 all-milk price paid to farmers was $16.04 per
hundredweight (cwt), the highest ever, while the average has been
$13.57 cwt for the last ten years. The forecasts for 2005 peg the all-
milk price as the third highest on record.
The 2004 ITC report also found that there was no direct
relationship between imports of milk proteins and farm milk prices over
the study period. The report stated that ``[t]he data do not show a
clear and direct relationship between imports of milk protein products
and the all-milk price in all years.'' \3\ The report also noted that
the ITC reviewed a broad range of studies by prominent dairy economists
and, ``[e]ven though these studies differed in terms of modeling
approaches, commodity coverage, and base year, they generally found
that imports of milk protein products have had little impact on farm-
level prices in the U.S. market.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid, 9-4
\4\ Ibid, 9-23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk Protein Imports Do Not Displace Domestic Milk Production
TRQ supporters have made the argument that imports of casein,
caseinate and MPC have displaced domestically produced milk proteins,
principally NFDM, in the U.S. marketplace. However, the U.S. domestic
market is extremely robust for NFDM notwithstanding the imports. The
most recent data, as reported by the U.S. Dairy Export Council,
indicates that NFDM prices in June 2005 averaged 16% higher than the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) purchase support price.
Additionally, the CCC has not bought NFDM for 35 weeks. Further, the
ITC report concluded that imports of casein, caseinate and MPC may have
substituted for only 1.27 percent of U.S. milk protein production from
1998-2002.
In sum, there are many substantive reasons to reject H.R. 521. The
bill is a poster child for trade protectionism; is anti-consumer;
violates U.S. trade agreements and is damaging to U.S. trade objectives
in the current WTO Round. For all these reasons we urge the Trade
Subcommittee to omit H.R. 521 from the miscellaneous tariff bill.
On behalf of the following consumer organizations, associations and
food companies and employees, we appreciate your consideration of our
views.
American Bakers Association
American Feed Industry Association
Americans for Tax Reform
American Frozen Food Institute
American Meat Institute
Arla Foods Ingredients, Inc.
BL Ingredients, LLC
ConAgra Foods, Inc.
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Committee to Assure the Availability of Casein
Consumers for World Trade
Davisco Foods International
Dean Foods Company
DMV International Nutritionals, Inc.
Erie Foods, International
Euro Proteins
Fonterra (USA), Inc.
Food Distributors International
Food Products Association
General Mills Inc.
Glanbia Ingredients, Inc.
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Hershey Foods Company
H.J. Heinz Company
IDB, Inc.
International Dairy Foods Association
Kerry Inc.
Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Lactalis/Sorrento, Inc.
Lactoprot USA, Inc
Masterfoods USA
National Confectioners Association
National Taxpayers Union
National Frozen Pizza Institute
Nestle, USA
Novartis Nutrition
Pet Food Institute
RetireSafe.org
Sargento Foods Inc.
Slim-Fast Foods
The Schwann Food Company
Saputo Cheese USA, Inc.
Schreiber Foods, Inc.
Snack Food Association
Davis, California 95617
August 31, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Thank you,
Muzhdah Aimaq
American Numismatic Association
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
August 24, 2005
E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
I am writing on behalf of the American Numismatic Association (ANA)
to oppose the imposition of import restrictions on coins proposed in
conjunction with H.R. 915 (the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads
of Civilization Act).
The ANA is a nonprofit, educational organization chartered by the
United States Congress to promote the study and collection of money and
related items for research, interpretation and preservation of history
and culture from ancient times to the present. The ANA has almost
33,000 active members in the United States and our numbers are growing.
Many of our members collect Greek coins struck thousands of years ago
in what is now Afghanistan. Others collect more obscure money that
circulated in the area, including coins struck by the Mauryan Empire,
the Kushans, the White Huns, the Turks, the Mongols, and the Savid
Dynasties.
Although the ANA supports reasonable efforts to protect Afghan
collections and archaeological sites, the ANA is concerned that
application of import restrictions to numismatics, including coins,
paper money, tokens and medals, will adversely impact the longstanding
legitimate trade and collecting of any such items. Typically,
numismatic items do not carry any provenance with them, particularly of
the sort contemplated by U.S. Customs under the governing statute.
Thus, a legitimate holder of numismatic material may not be able to
establish the necessary historical ownership of legally purchased
numismatics to avoid forfeiture of his or her collection under the
contemplated import restrictions. Likewise, numismatic items are not
the type of cultural antiquities that should be included in H.R. 915.
Coins and other forms of money were often mass produced making them a
common circulating item of trade and barter rather than the type of
antiquity intended to be protected by H.R. 915.
U.S. citizens have enjoyed collecting ancient money since the
American Revolution (and citizens of the Colonies enjoyed coin
collecting before the revolution). President John Quincy Adams was a
serious collector of ancient Greek and Roman coins. Other Presidents
like Theodore Roosevelt and, more recently, Ronald Reagan and Bill
Clinton have appreciated owning the type of coinage that would be
covered under any proposed restrictions. There is no supportable reason
that could be advanced to impose import restrictions on coins,
particularly given the harm the imposition of import restrictions would
cause to legitimate collectors and individuals dealing in such
numismatic items.
By providing an exemption for numismatics, we believe that Congress
can still achieve the goal of protecting ``culturally significant''
Afghan antiquities while preserving numismatics as an important
historical and cultural resource for future generations of Americans.
On behalf of the ANA and its nearly 33,000 members, I hope that the
Subcommittee on Trade will exclude numismatics from the import
restrictions of H.R. 915. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cipoletti
Executive Director
American Numismatic Society
New York, New York 10038
August 20, 2005
E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are Trustees of the American Numismatic Society (ANS). The ANS,
founded in 1858, is arguably the nation's premier numismatic
institution, and the only one with the unique honor of displaying the
highlights of its collection at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
We are writing in our individual capacity solely as concerned citizens
to oppose efforts to impose restrictions on Americans importing coins
based at least in part on erroneous information contained in the
subject legislation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One of the major predicates for the bill's ``emergency import
restrictions'' is the claim at finding 16 that, ``100 percent of the
objects [from the Kabul National Museum] were stolen and vandalized.''
However, it has now been reported that most of the important items
thought to be missing from the Afghan National Museum (including coins)
have in fact been found in excellent condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, we express deep concern about proposals to shift the
legal burden of proof to show that a particular coin did not come from
a country with restrictive cultural property laws onto collectors,
professional numismatists and institutions holding coins. Such
proposals seek to deter the entrance of looted materials into the
numismatic trade, but at the cost of imposing an unfair, unworkable and
unnecessary burden on those holding coins legitimately. Domestic law
already bars entry of any coins or other artifacts that are proven to
be stolen, and there are less intrusive means of encouraging
preservation of archaeological sites in source countries. These means
include better policing of archaeological sites, public education
programs, reasonable regulation of metal detectors, and promulgation
fair laws that encourage members of the public to report their finds
with the prospect of an award. In contrast, it is unfair to assume that
collectors, dealers and institutions holding coins can show their
provenance when millions of historical coins have been widely traded
since the Renaissance without any requirement to show their chain of
ownership.
A distinctive feature of coinage compared with those of most other
artifacts explains the reason why it is so difficult to establish a
coin's origins. Today, a nation issues money for circulation within its
particular boundaries as a symbol of its jealously guarded
independence. However, historically, and until quite recently, it was
commonplace to find a variety of coinages in circulation within any
given country. Such a situation was indeed the case in the U.S. before
foreign coins were demonetized in 1857. Given wide circulation
patterns, determining the provenance of any coin or coins residing in a
museum or private collection is usually deemed impossible.
American citizens have enjoyed collecting historical coins since
before the American Revolution. Serious American collectors of ancient
and foreign coins have included President John Quincy Adams. Teddy
Roosevelt is said to have carried an ancient Greek coin as a pocket
piece, and ancient Greek coins of the sort contemplated for potential
restriction inspired his ``pet project'' to redesign our own coinage in
the early part of the 20th Century.
By providing an exemption for coins, we believe that Congress can
still achieve the goal of protecting ``culturally significant'' Afghan
antiquities while preserving numismatics as an important historical and
cultural resource for future generations of Americans.
Sincerely,
John W. Adams
Boston, MA
Kenneth L. Edlow
New York, NY
Prof. Peter P. Gaspar
St. Louis, MO
Robert A. Kandel
New Rochelle, NY
Clifford L. Mishler
Iola, WI
Emilio M. Ortiz
San Juan, PR
Douglass F. Rohrman
Kenilworth, IL
Stanley DeForest Scott
New York, NY
David B. Simpson
Tenafly, NJ
Peter K. Tompa
Washington, DC
Arnold-Peter C. Weiss, MD
Barrington, RI
John Whitney Walter
Plandome, NY
American Schools of Oriental Research
Boston University
Boston, MA 02215
19 August 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
As Executive Director of the premiere North American organization
conducting archaeological research in the Middle East, I worry deeply
about any losses in the archaeological record which might take away
from our understanding of or appreciation for world culture. But I am
especially concerned about preserving the cultural heritage of
countries within the arena of our work. The American Schools of
Oriental Research (ASOR) was founded in 1900 and has been working for
the past century plus to understand and preserve for posterity the
material culture of the broader Middle East.
In order to contribute to the accomplishment of this task, ASOR has
adopted strict policies governing antiquities from the region (http://
www.asor.org/policy.htm), which are based on international laws and the
intentional cooperation among countries around the globe. Looting of
sites and trafficking in artifacts represent a global scourge and we
want to support any legislation which will stem the rising tide of
illegal exporting and importing of these irreplaceable material
cultural remains.
In the spirit of these principles and goals, I wish to add my voice
to those urging your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it. The looting of sites and theft from
museums in Afghanistan have been significant problems for many years.
As with Iraq, the United States has undertaken a special relationship
with Afghanistan. Concern for preservation of the cultural heritage of
Afghanistan must be given equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Cordially,
Douglas R. Clark, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild
Gainesville, Missouri 65655
September 2, 2005
Dear Congressman Shaw;
The provisions of H.R. 915, as proposed, call for import
restrictions on antique and ancient collectable coins. The Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild respectfully opposes any such restrictions. Coins,
first of all are typically not significant cultural property since they
were produced in huge numbers and by design were exchanged across
national and cultural boundaries, both in antiquity as monetary
instruments and in modern times as collectables. The value of coins as
cultural ambassadors is tremendous and this fact is well recognized by
the government of Afghanistan.
In a letter from the Afghan Embassy to the Ancient Coin Collectors
Guild, First Secretary Hekmat Karzai wrote: ``Clearly, it is vital for
Afghanistan to preserve its heritage, yet we also recognize the need to
teach individuals about the wonderful history of Afghanistan. We have
to find a balance where both of the objectives are met.'' We absolutely
agree. The way to achieve this balance is not through import
restrictions, but through cooperative efforts to identify stolen
property, enforce existing laws against looting, and return stolen
items to Afghanistan when they are recovered.
The ACCG has offered to facilitate the latter by hosting a recovery
center on the guild website and launching a serious campaign among
private collectors to recover any items which enter the market
illegally. Private collectors have been vilified by certain
ideologically driven members of the archaeological community and much
publicity has attended the release of Roger Atwood's ``Stealing
History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World.
There are approximately 50,000 collectors of ancient coins in the
United States and they simply do not represent an ``evil'' force. This
point is made clear very well in a recent review of the Atwood book by
Dr. Alan Walker. Dr. Walker received his training as a Classical
Archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania and has the unique
perspectives of an archaeologist and a professional numismatist. The
review is published online at http://accg.us/issues/editorials/pro/
walker along with other topical articles. I attach this review here for
inclusion into the record on this issue because it presents an
articulate and passionate counterpoint to the arguments typically used
in condemning the collector market and private ownership of virtually
any cultural property. Please consider the serious impact on American
citizens that the proposed import restrictions of H.R. 915 would
unnecessarily create.
Respectfully yours,
Wayne G. Sayles
----------
Stealing History. Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the
Ancient World. By Roger Atwood. New York, 2004. 337 pp., frontispiece,
map, 27 photos. Clothbound with dust jacket. (ISBN 0-312-32406-5)
$25.95
This is a fascinating, disturbing, well-written and very pernicious
book that beautifully blends true facts with skewed and, often, very
biased reasoning to produce a perfect example of the politically
correct anti-collector, anti-museum and anti-art trade propaganda we
hear all the time from radical archaeologists and their allies. I think
this book has received a tremendous amount of hype and will have a
great deal of influence, so it is important that all collectors,
especially including coin collectors, know what's in it and know how to
react when and if they are challenged, or even attacked, because of
their collecting interests.
RA's basic focus is on two areas in which he has more than a little
expertise, Peru, where there has long been widespread looting of tombs
for objects in precious metal, terracotta figural pottery and fabrics,
and in Iraq, where there has been widespread looting of virtually
everything. Extrapolating worldwide, he firmly believes that unless
something is done, all accessible archaeological sites will be totally
destroyed by looters by 2050. Needless to say, what he thinks needs to
be done is to basically ban the collecting, whether by public or
private institutions or by individuals, of anything without a full
provenance (and what he means by provenance is a secure chain of
ownership going back to a licensed excavation; with, in addition, proof
that the object legally left the country in which it was found--this
means that lots of material properly excavated and then taken out of
countries in the 19th century falls under a cloud because, officially,
it shouldn't have left). In addition, he also insists on making the
assumption (in common with the radical archaeologists) that anything
lacking a provenance simply has to have come out of the ground very
recently. Another brilliant idea he has is to slap ``an indefinite
worldwide moratorium on trade in undocumented antiquities made of gold,
silver, and other precious metals'' (p. 244). This, he thinks, would be
a terrific help in the fight against looting because he believes that
looters mostly search for gold objects, tossing out or destroying other
things they find as worthless. Of course, it actually shows how out of
touch with reality RA is: for thousands of years looters only searched
for precious objects, which were, in fact, invariably melted down (the
spectacular Brescello Hoard of 1714, which contained ca. 80,000 late
Republican aurei--the latest being Crawford 534 of 38 BC--was, after
the rarities were sorted out and a relatively small number of other
pieces went off to collectors, almost entirely used to make ducats!).
While looters may well throw out pots in Peru (they have apparently
found so many that there is no market), they don't anywhere else, so
all RA's idea would do is ensure that all precious metal objects would
be treated as they used to be: melted into convenient and anonymous
bars.
Trying to argue in favor of collecting, whether public or private,
is very difficult because radical archaeologists have done a very good
job of occupying the moral high ground. To them, and to the vocal
supporters of the UNESCO accord of 1970, virtually all private
ownership of cultural objects is an anathema; thus, it is easy for them
to condemn all their opponents as heartless, greedy, elitists who
profit from the destruction of mankind's past. Yet there are a lot of
facts that RA and others of his ilk are very good at selectively
ignoring: some that they don't like, and some that they think might,
perhaps, confuse the issue.
For example, why is it that the looting problem in England is so
much less drastic than in other areas of the world? The answer probably
is that the essential fairness of the British system makes it very
likely that honest finders will report anything they discover because
they know they will be treated properly. If the state lays claim to
what they have found they get a very fair reward (usually equal to the
effective market value), otherwise they get to do whatever they wish
with their discovery. When builders run into archaeological remains
during the course of construction projects, rescue excavations are
carried out, but the builders are given full recompense for the time
lost. In addition, landowners never have to worry about having their
lands expropriated by the state for archaeological reasons with minimal
compensation. As in the U.S., the state can utilize its powers of
eminent domain, but the owner must receive the land's full market
value.
Elsewhere, of course, especially in the major source countries, all
objects found in the ground, whether on public or private land, ipso
facto belong to the state, with no right of private ownership
whatsoever (this is the case in Egypt, among many other places).
Rewards, if given at all, are arbitrary in nature and usually have no
relation to the object's national or international market value.
Farmers or builders who run into archaeological remains can find
themselves in severe trouble: farming land can be expropriated at an
arbitrarily low value, especially if the landowner lacks political
connections (since archaeological remains preclude building or farming
work, the land's value is automatically downgraded to benefit the
state), and building work can be held up for so long, with negligible
compensation, that the contractor and the owner can suffer severe
financial losses, if not bankruptcy (this does not happen, of course,
with state projects). Therefore, it often seems better for builders to
bulldoze ancient remains than to report them. The fact that landowners
lack ownership rights in objects found within the soil means that there
is absolutely no incentive for them to protect their land from looters
(especially since looters occasionally pay the landowners a fee for
`allowing' them to dig, while reporting ancient remains to the
authorities can lead to expropriations). It should be immediately
obvious that draconian confiscatory laws that provide little or no fair
compensation to honest finders or landowners simply have to be counter-
productive: Italy has had laws like that for generations, and for
generations people have ignored them because they were so blatantly
unfair. After all, if a farm or an estate has been owned by a single
family for generations, why should the state own everything found there
and not the family?
Another fact, which is almost entirely ignored by RA and the
archaeologists, is that people in most of the source countries are
often rather impoverished. This clearly is a major reason why chance
finds and looted material are sold rather than turned into the
government. After all, the average annual per capita income in Peru is
something like $5000 (but with most rural villagers making less than
half of this amount) so selling a small object for $20 or $50 or a few
$100 can make a real difference in the seller's standard of living.
This is true in virtually every source country (the per capita income
in Turkey is about $6600--much higher in the big cities and far lower
in rural districts). Fair and prompt rewards, based on local
circumstances (i.e., if an object is worth $50,000 on Madison Avenue,
but the local runner will only pay $400 in Turkey, a reward of $550
will do perfectly), would end a great deal of destruction. A perfect
example is the famous Dekadrachm Hoard found near Elmali in Turkey. At
the time it was found Turkish law apparently provided for rewards, but
only up to a certain amount of money. No matter what a coin was, the
maximum the finder could expect was the equivalent of $150--if a group
of coins was found, the maximum reward, regardless of what they might
be or how many they were, was $6000. The villagers probably knew this
and so took their coins to a middleman who paid them, according to
court papers, the equivalent of $168,000--twenty-eight times what the
official reward would have been! As everyone knows, this hoard
ultimately went for $4,000,000 (over 660 times the official reward!!)
to an American consortium; then, after years of legal wrangling, it
went back to Turkey. Can you imagine how much the Turks must have paid
in legal fees? One European numismatist had an hour's talk with Larry
Kaye, the lead attorney for Turkey, and his assistant, a junior lawyer
brought along to act as secretary: this probably cost the Turks $500
for the senior lawyer, $300 for the junior and $20 for the coffee! And
this case must have consumed thousands of billing hours!
Obviously, had Elmali been in England, the hoard probably would
have been reported when it was found, would have been properly
excavated with exploration of the surrounding area, would have ended up
in the British Museum, and the proud finder and the land owner would
have divided a multi-million reward (as actually happened with the
famous late Roman Hoxne hoard, discovered in 1992). But, someone will
say, Turkey doesn't have that kind of money. True, but if those
villagers would have been confident that they'd get a tax-free, legal,
reward of $175,000 or $200,000, a fraction of what the hoard was worth
internationally but more than they would have received selling on the
black market (and a fraction of what Turkey must have paid in American
legal fees), they'd have turned it in like a shot! Wouldn't this have
been better for archaeology?
Villagers are not stupid: if they feel that their own government is
cheating them or, in fact, stealing from them, they will refuse to turn
in the things they find. Is this the fault of collectors?
In fact, isn't it clear that bad laws in the source countries are a
major factor contributing to why finds go unreported, sites are damaged
or destroyed, and smuggling is rampant? Why aren't archaeologists
clamoring for the source countries to change their laws into ones like
those in England, where finders are treated so fairly that an ever
increasing amount of often vital archaeological information has been
gathered thanks to the enthusiastic cooperation of finders and
landowners (for the astonishingly successful Portable Antiquities
Scheme, see http://www.finds.org.uk/index.asp)?
Why, indeed?
Now we come to the very important part that political correctness
has to play in the debate over antiquities. As everyone knows it has
become very fashionable to blame the rich western European powers, and
by extension the Americans, for most of the world's ills. Among left-
wing academics it is normal to view white males of western European
origin as being responsible for colonialism, racism, sexism,
capitalism, class divisions, slavery, all manner of oppressions, and,
of course, for the pillage of wealth, artifacts and works of art from
lesser developed and Third World states (it should be noted that ALL
source countries consider themselves to be part of this general class
of countries). Thus, suggesting that such countries enact rational laws
in emulation of Great Britain is a complete non-starter: after all,
didn't Britain colonize vast areas of the world; weren't treasures from
Greece, Italy, Turkey, India, China, the Middle East, Nigeria, Egypt,
et al., taken by British travelers, bought by English lords, or looted
by British armies, all to adorn museums in Great Britain? In many ways
the irrational nature of many source country cultural heritage laws is
simply a reaction against the events of the past: ``Those clever
Europeans tricked us by taking so many artifacts from our country at a
time when we couldn't resist them (and, to be honest, at a time when we
actually didn't want any of it since we thought it was valueless and
that the foreigners were crazy!), so now we are going to keep
everything!'' Thus, there are museum store rooms in the source
countries that are positively jam packed with objects, most of which
will never be on display and many of which have never been published
(the store rooms of the archaeological museum of Naples are notorious
in this regard): if some of this material was sold, after being
recorded, there would be more than enough money to publish, inventory,
conserve and display all the rest.
But why don't all those American and western European
archaeologists, who are such vehement defenders of ancient sites in the
source countries, try to get those ineffective laws changed, rather
than just attacking collectors, museums and dealers in their own
countries? The simple reason is that it is against their interest to do
so.
Any foreign archaeologist who wants to excavate a site or study
museum material in a source country has to get an official permit from
that country's ministry of culture to do so. Such permits are not just
given out to anyone who asks: usually foreign scholars have to go
through their own country's institute in the source country (like the
American, Australian, Austrian, British, Canadian, French, German,
Italian, Swedish, Swiss, etc. institutes in Athens), and they have to
meet certain standards. One absolutely sure way of NOT getting a permit
is to say or do something that source country officials don't approve
of; like, for example, suggesting that the country's laws ought to be
changed because they don't work and are counter-productive. No American
archaeologist working, or wanting to work, in Turkey would ever be
crazy enough to publicly criticize Turkish laws, since that would
result in a rather rapid career-change once the Turkish authorities
heard of it (just for fun, if you really want to get a foreign
archaeologist working in Turkey really upset, try getting him or her to
express a public opinion on who was responsible for the genocidal
massacres of the Armenians that took place in Asia Minor in the late
19th century and during World War I--you may be amazed to find that a
distinguished professor, highly knowledgable about ancient and medieval
history, just so happens to know nothing at all about modern history).
In a well-known case that resulted in an American dealer returning a
group of Mycenaean jewelry to Greece, it is said that one of the
reasons why he decided to settle and not fight it out in court is that
he could get no recognized expert in Mycenaean art to testify on his
behalf: specifically that Mycenaean objects could be found in many
places in the eastern Mediterranean (Italy, Cyprus, the Levant and
Egypt) rather than just in Greece, as the Greek government maintained.
The obvious reason why they wouldn't is that if they did so they would
be banned from working in Greece for life.
The converse is true when an American archaeologist attacks
collectors, dealers or museums in the U.S. for having material that he
believes was looted from the source country where he excavates: he
becomes a hero! This is how it works. The American professor makes an
impassioned speech, demanding that some item or other be returned to
Italy from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. This speech gets
reported in a number of Italian papers, the professor is given an award
by an Italian heritage group, he gets accolades from Italian
archaeologists, and his excavation permit is speedily renewed. Back in
the U.S., the Metropolitan issues a dry statement about legal ownership
but otherwise ignores our professor (to be sure, they probably won't
give him a grant). There are no reprisals and his stature will be
enhanced among his peers. The same thing would be true if he attacks
American private collectors--he looks good and nothing bad happens to
him (of course, if a junior faculty member launched a violent diatribe
against a collector, not knowing that the collector was an alumnus of
the university in which he teaches and that the collector had up to
that point intended on donating $50 million for a new gymnasium, our
young professor's chances for tenure might evaporate--but then he'd
become a martyr for academic freedom and advance his career).
Thus, it ought to be obvious that every time one of the radical
archaeologists attacks collectors and the antiquity trade in America
and in Western Europe for being the primary cause of looting, he may be
sincere, but he is neither unbiased nor honest. Rather, by focusing
solely on the trade, he is, for political reasons, deliberately
ignoring all the contributing factors caused by unfair and impractical
laws in the source countries (that would be ``blaming the victim'').
The really radical even go so far as to object very strongly to rewards
because they believe a) that since the state claims all objects
discovered in the ground, it is the duty of every citizen to turn in
anything found, thus making rewards unnecessary (in some countries even
picking up something lying on the ground is against the law!); b) that
basing rewards on market prices is highly improper because if the trade
itself is illegal in the source country, basing rewards on the prices
for items that reached foreign markets illicitly is absurd since those
prices should be ignored; c) that most source countries are relatively
impoverished so that the payment of rewards would be an unacceptable
expense; and d) that since looting is clearly the fault of wealthy
collectors in the West, eliminating the collectors would eliminate any
need for rewards.
RA also goes on and on about how much valuable evidence is lost due
to looting, and how many `priceless' artifacts are lost to the source
countries. In fact, this is a refrain constantly heard whenever the
radical archaeologists attack collectors; but is it true? Yes, to some
extent it is. A complete tomb complex can tell us a tremendous amount
about the occupant and the society in which he lived, but when it's
looted, the finders will only be looking for salable objects (which are
often dispersed so that their connections are lost) and will dig
through and destroy organic remains and poorly preserved minor items
that would have told archaeologists a great deal. This, of course, is
not the case when something is professionally excavated, especially
when it is published and made available for study (not always the case,
alas): yet just because it is properly excavated does not necessarily
mean that it is of any importance. After all, there are many things
that are found, which are of types we already have, or provide evidence
for things we already know. For example, one old-time classical
archaeologist arranged for state-of-the-art water sieving and other
evidence-retention methods to be used for an excavation of a Greek
urban site. Aside from tiny fragments of wine and oil vessels, plates,
cups and cheese strainers, and bones from meat animals such as goats,
sheep, cattle and swine, among the items found, which otherwise might
not have been, were grape and olive pits, remains of pulses and
legumes, and fish bones. But, as he remarked later, ``we already knew
from ancient literature that the ancient Greeks, like the modern ones,
ate olives, grapes, beans, lentils, various kinds of meat, fish and
cheese, drank wine and used oil. Was spending all this money and effort
to confirm what we already knew worth it?'' The answer is, of course,
probably not. In fact, while often not mentioned it is no secret that
vast numbers of unimportant artifacts found in excavations are dumped
after study (they tend to be used as fill for fully excavated ancient
wells) since they tell us nothing and there is no need, or space, for
their storage (for example, if excavators discover a room containing 25
complete and c. 100 fragmentary storage amphorae, all of the same type,
they will probably retain all of the complete ones, but only a very
small number of the fragments--perhaps destined for destructive
analysis--with the rest being dumped).
The most extraordinary comment, now made constantly, is that the
artifacts being looted are ``priceless treasures of inestimable
value'', not only for the cultural heritage of the country involved,
but on the market as well. For example, at the time of writing there
has been a big hoo-haa about a Marine who bought eight cylinder seals
from a trinket seller in Iraq for $200, and brought them back home with
him. Curious about what they were, he went to the University Museum in
Philadelphia and asked about them. Well, the curator there immediately
recognized them as `priceless treasures' [actually he is reported to
have said they were worth $25,000!!!] that had to have come from
ancient Mesopotamia (which was smart of him considering he was the
curator of Near Eastern Art), and that they had to have been exported
illegally from Iraq. He immediately contacted the FBI. The Marine was
shocked and very properly and honestly turned them over to the FBI to
be repatriated to Iraq (they are now temporarily on display in the
University Museum; see, http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb05/
iraqstones022305.htm--you can find images of all eight on the web as
well). The media went crazy about this wonderful return of these rare
and exciting and oh so important and valuable objects. But, of course,
no one has bothered to ask whether they are really valuable or
important . . . and, sorry to tell you, they're not. They are surely
real, but all eight, to my untrained eye, are of known types (found in
museum and private collections all over the world, including Iraq, and
in dealers' stocks); are of no particular artistic, historic or
archaeological importance; and, altogether, might be worth $2000 (in a
major Christie's or Sotheby's antiquity sale none would be worth
selling as a single lot; in fact, all eight would be sold together).
What's going on?
The simple fact is that the VAST majority of objects that the
radical archaeologists and their media friends term `priceless
treasures of cultural heritage' are neither priceless nor treasures.
Since the archaeologists are not stupid, why do they make these claims?
After all, they didn't used to; quite the contrary.
Not that long ago the radical, anti-collector archaeologists spent
a great deal of effort trying to convince the world that ancient
objects were, in fact, just junk of no real value, unworthy of being
collected. The reason why people wanted them, or `esteemed them' as the
radicals would say, is that dealers hyped them up, in the same way that
the `art' of Damian Hirst and Jeff Koons has been. In their eyes,
ancient objects were worthy of being in museums where they could be
studied by real scholars (such as themselves), but private collectors
were making fools out of themselves by collecting them. There are two
absolutely iconic studies in this vein, both roughly contemporary. The
first, by Michael Vickers and David Gill, is Artful Crafts: Ancient
Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford 1994). Vickers is a very good
scholar who likes shaking things up and is, perhaps, most familiar to
numismatists from an article in NC 1985, entitled, Early Greek Coinage,
a Reassessment (pp. 1-44) in which he tried to radically down-date the
beginning of ancient Greek coinage. His well written and thought
provoking theories were, three years later, totally demolished by
Margaret C. Root's wonderful article in NC 1988, Evidence from
Persepolis for the dating of Persian and archaic Greek Coinage (pp. 1-
12). In Artful Crafts he argued that all Greek painted pottery (Black
Figure, Red Figure, White Ground, etc.) was designed to be a cheap
imitation of the luxurious gold, silver and ivory vessels supposedly
used by the rich, and was, in itself, of no importance. Thus, it had
nothing to do with Greek painting, only with metal work, and all the
years of research by art historians into `hands' and named artists was
mostly a waste of time. For him, Attic Red Figure was related to the
true art of precious metal vases in the same way as Martha Stewart
porcelain at Walmart was related to Royal Copenhagen: i.e., not at all!
He even suggests that the history of the `esteem' for ancient painted
pottery goes back to the dealers who worked to sell Lord Hamilton's
large collection of `vases' (the radicals prefer to call them pots
because `vase' has a connotation of class and value!) by convincing
`gullible' collectors that they represented the finest of Greek art,
rather than as the Melmac that he would prefer to see them as! The
underlying message was, ``You stupid collectors, you've been fooled for
200 years into thinking this crap was art, even though it was made as a
cheap imitation of no value. Boy, have you been swindled!!!''
As you might guess, this book caused an immediate uproar among the
pot folk (or vase specialists), who promptly went to counterattack
everything he had to say. In the end, of course, the pot people came
out on top in the scholarly world, and collectors refused to stop
collecting since they could see for themselves that many of the pots
were true artistic masterpieces.
The second study is an article by David Gill and Christopher
Chippendale: Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for
Cycladic Figures, AJA 97/3 (1993), pp. 602-673 (see also, http://
www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/chip/chip213.htm). This is another
beautifully written and very convincing essay, which basically claims
that the vast majority of Cycladic marble figurines in museums and
private collections all over the world are all modern fakes because
virtually none of them have any provenance! Not only that, they go to
great lengths to `prove' that the figurines are not art, in part by
suggesting that the people who made them were merely simply farmers who
had no concept of true art (as if they had whittled them for the kids
whilst sitting on the back porch). This, of course, is an attack on
those scholars who studied Cycladic figures and assigned them to
varying `schools' or, even, to specific `masters' or `hands', thus, in
G & C's opinion, making the objects more attractive for collectors.
They also rail against the way the figures are displayed and viewed.
Modern viewers have always been impressed by the smooth lines and sheer
whiteness of the figures (they especially influenced famous modern
artists like Brancussi and Picasso), thus making them seem contemporary
in spirit, but G & C tell us that we shouldn't look at them this way
since they were originally garishly painted. In addition, we often
display them incorrectly since the large tall figures that look so
ethereal, even Christ-like, when mounted vertically, really were meant
to be lying down. Thus, modern appreciation for these figures is based
on false premises because we are not looking at them the way they were
meant to be looked at when they were made (of course, if they're all
fake, G & C's efforts to convince us that we're viewing them
incorrectly seem to be misplaced). Sad to say for G & C, the wide world
of museums, scholars, collectors and art dealers have resolutely
refused to be convinced by their brilliantly written dissertation--
Greek archaeologists surely don't believe them since they haven't tried
to prevent the Greek government from going to court in attempts,
sometimes successful, at confiscating Cycladic material appearing in
major auctions (somewhat astoundingly, especially if all this stuff is
`fake', the catalogue of the greatest collection of unprovenanced and
illegally excavated Cycladic material in the world, that of the superb
Goulandris Museum in Athens, was written by none other than that self-
appointed scourge of collectors, Lord Colin Renfrew himself! If this
isn't world-class hypocrisy, what is?).
These two extraordinary works were part of a trend that attacked
collecting and the trade in antiquities by shrilly objecting that
modern people were appreciating ancient objects for the wrong reasons,
were placing outrageously high monetary values on them, were viewing
them in ways they weren't originally meant to be viewed, and were
displaying them out of their original contexts or far from where they
were originally made. This last point was particularly bizarre since it
meant that in their view the only way anyone can truly understand any
art is to see it where it was made and under the conditions that
obtained at the time it was created. Using this logic Cycladic art can
only be understood if it is seen on Naxos, perhaps while drinking an
ouzaki and munching on a piece of grilled octopus, rather than in
Athens or Boston or London; and Andy Warhol's works can only be fully
appreciated in New York City, and only by multi-sexual users of
recreational drugs, rather than in museums and private homes all over
the world. It also had the curious result that the old rallying cry of
the radical archaeologists, that antiquities were the ``common heritage
of all mankind'', had to be dropped. After all, if Cycladic figures
were the common heritage of all humankind, it would make sense for them
to be in museums, and even private collections, all over the world,
rather than only being the property of the source country where they
were found as the radicals wished.
Well, as we know, all these arguments have not been very
successful, simply because their logic was absurd to begin with, and
people weren't impressed by them. So what did our radicals do? They
made a 180+ turn and now claim that all ancient objects are
inestimable, priceless treasures, of supreme value for the cultural
heritage of the country in which they are found. That's right,
everything is priceless: from Palaeolithic stone tools, ordinary
Neolithic through the Byzantine household pottery, common cylinder
seals and Roman bronze fibulae, to worn small AE folles of the House of
Constantine! And since nowadays people all over the world are
particularly impressed by monetary value (``priceless!'',
``treasure!''), the radical archaeologists have finally hit on a way to
impress the media and politicians into believing that a virtual shut
down of the world's art trade, and the demonization, if not
criminalization, of collectors is the only way to stop the looting of
archaeological sites.
Unfortunately, this strategy seems to be working. In the press, on
television, and in books like RA's, the antiquities trade, and by
extension the trade in ancient coins, is under attack as never before;
with collectors being reviled as the major cause of looting. This is
being done by highly articulate people who can be quite sincere, but
whose unquestioning acceptance of the radical archaeologists' programs
produce biased, one-sided and politically correct reporting.
How can we fight back? Collectors have to start writing protest
letters to their political representatives to make their opinions
heard. We also have to make sure the right questions are asked and
investigated. Like,
Why is it that in England, where laws are fair, such a huge amount
of archaeological finds are reported by the public, often in such
timely fashion that they can be excavated professionally? Is the fact
that finders receive prompt and fair rewards for anything wanted by the
state, while those items not wanted are returned to the finder, a major
factor behind the widespread acceptance of English heritage laws?
Why do large numbers of people in the source countries not obey
their countries' antiquity laws? Is the state's declaration of
ownership of everything found under the ground, on public or private
land, one of the direct causes of the black market because rewards for
compliance are too low to be attractive? Is another cause the fact that
rewards are less than the amount that local dealers are willing to pay?
When someone speaks about how important an ancient object is for
cultural history, or what a `priceless treasure' it is, ask him or her
why. Why is an ancient pot/bronze figurine/marble sculpture/coin,
similar or even the same as many others previously known vital for a
country's heritage?
The United States is a country built by immigrants, unlike the more
homogenous states of Europe. At one point Chicago is said to have been
the second-largest Greek city in the world after Athens, and it is well
known that millions and millions of Americans have some Italian
ancestry. Do these people have no right to objects pertaining to their
heritage? There are surely Greek-Americans and Italian-Americans living
in the U.S. today whose distant ancestors actually made some of the
pots, or used some of the coins, found in Greece or Italy today--why
should these people be excluded from owning such items? If an American
wants to move to Italy and bring his entire collection with him, he is
free to do so, but if an Italian wants to move to the USA with his
paintings, coins and vases, many of his possessions will not be allowed
out--is this right?
The radical archaeologists have managed to claim the moral high
ground in the debate over the trade in coins and antiquities. It is
about time we push them off it.
Archaeological Institute of America
Boston, MA 02215
August 24, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Chairman Shaw:
As President of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), I am
writing to express my strong support and the support of the AIA for the
inclusion of H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of
Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions to
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from the cultural
institutions and archaeological sites of Afghanistan.
This bill is particularly important since Afghanistan has not yet
ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention and cannot ask for U.S. Protection
in the normal way under the current Cultural Property Implementation
Act of 1983. The more than 30 years of chaos in Afghanistan since their
revolution in 1974, shortly after the UNESCO Convention was written,
and lack of effective central authority in the country have prevented
Afghanistan from taking the important step of ratification. In the last
two decades looting in Afghanistan has been devastating to that
country's cultural heritage, and since the destruction of the Bamiyan
Buddhas by the Taliban in 2001 and the current war there the situation
has become even worse, rivaling, and if anything, exceeding the more
familiar situation in Iraq. As partial documentation of this
devastation, the AIA's website contains a description of the looting of
some major Afghan archaeological sites (www.archaeological.org, see
under ``Archaeology Watch, Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage''). Among
other postings may be found the text of an address ``The Impact of War
upon Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage'' by Mr. Abdul Wasey Feroozi,
Director General of the National Institute of Archaeology in Kabul. Mr.
Feroozi's text is supplemented by photographic documentation with
captions by Dr. Zemaryalai Tarzi, Director for the French Survey and
Excavation Archaeological Mission and former Director of Archaeology
and Conservation of Historical Monuments in Afghanistan. An article on
Dr.Tarzi's current excavations at Bamiyan was published in the January/
February issue of AIA's popular publication, Archaeology Magazine
(abstract at www.archaeology.org/0501/abstracts/afghan.html), and since
1998 there have been several other articles on the cultural heritage
problems in Afghanistan in the magazine. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan and it is
very important that concern for preservation of the cultural heritage
of Afghanistan be given equal consideration.
Antiquities are looted from sites so that they can be sold at high
prices to markets in Western Europe and the United States. The looting
of sites often causes irreversible damage to the sites, destroying
contextual relationships among artifacts and the contexts in which they
were used or buried in the past such as architecture, tombs, hearths,
kitchens, temples. Once those relationships are destroyed it becomes
impossible to reconstruct the full meaning of such artifacts--how they
were used and valued in the past and who used them. This information is
crucial to the full understanding and appreciation of the remains of
any ancient culture. It is critically important that the President be
given the authority to prevent the import into the United States of
looted cultural materials from Afghanistan and thereby reduce the
incentive fortheft and destruction of archaeological sites in that
country. Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to
fulfill its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
The AIA was founded in 1879 and chartered by an Act of Congress in
1906 and is now the oldest and largest non-profit organization in the
U.S. devoted to archaeology. Our over 8,000 members include not only
professional archaeologists but also students and members of the
general public. This latter category makes up a large majority of our
membership and many of our programs and publications are devoted to
educating the public about archaeology and cultural heritage and
fostering an appreciation for the role of archaeology in understanding
the human past. On behalf of all of our membership I urge you and the
members of your committee to approve the inclusion of HR 915 in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill and help the Afghan people to protect their
cultural heritage for themselves and for all of us.
Jane C. Waldbaum
President, Archaeological Institute of America
Bryn Mawr College
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2899
August 24, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan and, according to recent
news reports, terrorist groups are selling these illegal antiquities to
support their terrorist attacks (see attached article from the German
news magazine Der Spiegel). So aside from protecting the cultural
heritage of Afghanistan, there is good reason for the United States to
enact such legislation on the grounds of national and international
security. The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan
have been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. As the attached
article states, Mohammed Atta was attempting to sell in either 2000 or
2001 antiquities from Afghanistan, presumably, according to German
authorities, for the purpose of financing the purchase of an airplane.
He was referred to Sotheby's auction house. U.S. legislators ought to
want to act very decisively on legislation that will impose penalties
for anyone engaging in or abetting the sale of illegal antiquities.
Therefore, as a first step, it is crucial that the President be given
this authority to prevent the import into the United States of looted
cultural materials and thereby reduce the incentive for theft and
destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment of this legislation will
help the United States to fulfill its obligations to the Afghan people
and help to enrich our understanding of the world's and our own
cultural heritage.
James C. Wright
Professor and Chairman,
Member of the Professional Responsibilities Committee
Archaeological Institute of America
______
Der Spiegel 29/2005, p. 20
``ART FOR FINANCING TERRORISM? According to new information from
the Federal Crime Office (BKA) the pilot-terrorists from Hamburg
possibly attempted to finance the 9/11 attack through the sale of
illegal art. The head of the group, the Egyptian Mohammed Atta, spoke
in 2000 or 2001 to Prof. Brigitte G. of the University of Goettingen
and offered ``Afghan art with the intention of arranging its
exchange.'' ``He wanted to know, where antiquities could be marketed,''
the scholar remembered. Thereby according to the BKA, Atta had as a
possible reason also stated that he needed the money in order to
finance the purchase of an airplane. The contact with Goettingen was
provided by the Technical University of Hamburg, where he was then
studying. Although the professor referred him to Sotheby's auction
house, no sale occurred. At the beginning of 2000 Atta returned to
Germany from an Al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan in order to
prepare for the attack against the USA.''
Here is the original German version:
``KUNST ALS TERRORFINANZIERUNG?
Die Hamburger Todespiloten haben nach neuen Erkenntnissen des
Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) moglicherweise versucht, die Anschlage vom 11.
September 2001 durch illegalen Kunsthandel zu finanzieren. Der Kopf der
Gruppe, der Agypter Mohammed Atta, sprach 2000 oder 2001 die Gottinger
Professorin Brigitte G. an und offerierte ``afghanische Kunst mit dem
Ziel der Weitervermittlung''. ``Er wollte wissen, wo man Antiquitaeten
vermarkten kann'', erinnert sich die Wissenschaftlerin. Dabei habe
Atta, so das BKA, am Rande als Begrundung moglicherweise auch
geaussert, er brauche das Geld, um den Ankauf eines Flugzeugs zu
finanzieren. Der Kontakt nach Gottingen war uber die Technische
Universitat Harburg [sic] vermittelt wordern, an der Atta damals
studierte. Weil die Professorin ihn auf das Auktionshaus Sotheby's
verwies, kam kein Geschft zustande. Atta war Anfang 2000 aus den Qaida-
Ausbildungslagern in Afghanistan zuruck nach Deutschland gekommen, um
die Anschlage auf die USA vorzubereiten.''
Archaeological Institute of America
Long Island Society
Melville, NY 11747
August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw:
I am writing to ask you to strongly support the HR915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. This act will give
the President the authority to help stem the tide of illegal
antiquities that are being drained from Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has many archaeological sites that were once thriving
cities on the great Silk Road that linked China and India to the
western world. These sites and the artifacts found in them constitute
an important part of our world heritage. As tourists, we have
personally traveled portions of the Silk Road and would be appalled if
any of this heritage is lost. As members of the Archaeological
Institute of America, we are particularly aware of and sensitive to
this issue. We know your support will help advance our understanding of
world civilization.
Naomi Taub
Education Chairperson
Jesse Taub,
Member
Archaeological Institute of America
Milwaukee Society
Milwaukee, WI 53202
August 25, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Katherine Murrell
Public Relations/Outreach Coordinator
Archaeological Legacy Institute
Eugene, Oregon 97405
August 22, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am the Executive Director of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to
the sharing of information and perspectives relating to the human
cultural heritage worldwide. But before we can share this heritage, we
must first protect it.
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely yours,
Richard M. Pettigrew, Ph.D., RPA
Executive Director
Association of Dedicated Byzantine Collectors
Framingham, Massachusetts 017042
September 2005
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to oppose efforts to restrict the importation of coins
from Afghanistan. Coins from this area are numerous and there is
abundance for local and international research. Restricting their
importation would result in large quantities of coins that would become
unavailable for collectors and dealers from all over the world. This
category of researcher adds significantly to the knowledge of the
countries they study and we all profit from this added information.
Please ensure that American numismatists will be able to collect
and study coins from Afghanistan. Coins are a valuable addition to the
study of history and no country exists in a vacuum. We learn economics,
politics, gender issues as well as the straight history. This
information enriches us all, and gives us an understanding of each
other and each other's cultures. In a time when we are all struggling
to find ``place'' in the world, this is particularly important.
Sincerely,
Prudence Morgan Fitts
President
Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts
New York, New York 10024
August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am an archaeologist and professor of ancient art at the Bard
Graduate Center in New York City. I have worked for more than 25 years
restoring the ancient wooden furniture excavated at the site of Gordion
in Turkey, which belonged to the famous Phrygian King Midas and his
family. I have twice received grants from the National Endowment for
the Humanities for this project, which has involved an international
team of archaeologists and conservators. Support for this important
work by NEH and the United States government clearly indicates to me
that our elected officials have a serious and continuing interest in
the cultural heritage of the Middle East.
In this regard, I am writing to you to urge your support for
including H.R. 915, Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of
Afghanistan''), in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions to
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from Afghan
cultural institutions and other locations, particularly archaeological
sites in Afghanistan.
Immediate enactment of this legislation is extremely important,
since the plundering of Afghan archaeological sites is taking place on
a large scale right now. Afghanistan has played a crucial role in the
world's historical and cultural development, and the looting of Afghan
sites is seriously compromising the country's cultural heritage. When
the archaeological record is destroyed, all the world's people loose an
important part of their collective cultural heritage. This was
demonstrated by the widespread outrage that resulted from the recent
destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan.
Archaeological sites are plundered for antiquities that are traded
largely through markets in Western Europe, many ultimately finding
their way to the United States. We must therefore take responsibility
for the problem and do what we can to stop it. It is crucial that the
President be given the authority to prevent the import into the United
States of looted cultural materials from Afghanistan. This will reduce
the incentive for the looting and destruction of archaeological sites
and help us to fulfill our obligations to the Afghan people to protect
the precious remains of their ancient culture.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Simpson
Professor
University of Tennessee
Frank H. McClung Museum
Knoxville, Tennessee 27917
August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means U.S.
House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
My name is Bobby R. Braly and I am a doctoral student at the
University of Tennessee in the department of Anthropology. With the
current conditions overseas, I am writing to urge your support for
including H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of
Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions to
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from Afghan
cultural institutions and other locations, particularly archaeological
sites in Afghanistan. This legislation is necessary because
archaeological sites are now being looted on a large scale in
Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has played an important role
in the world's historical and cultural development. The looting of
sites destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific
information that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation
of sites. When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer forint.
Mr. Congressman I spent three months last summer excavating in Jordan
and would like to further emphasize the importance of antiquities from
this region. Although now an economically deprived area, the Middle
East was once home to some of the greatest civilizations of early
history. The corresponding artifacts are inherently important and must
be preserved. You are certainly aware that cultural resources are non-
renewable resources as that is why this letter has been sent with great
fear for loss and/or destruction to archaeological or ethnological
materials of Afghanistan
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States.
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites.
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage
Thank you,
Bobby R. Braly M.A., R.P.A.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan.
The heritage of Afghanistan has played an important role in the
world's historical and cultural development. The looting of sites
destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific information
that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation of sites.
When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer for it. The looting
of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have been significant
problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United States has undertaken
a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern for preservation of
the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Kelly M. Britt
Columbia University
Statement of Eric J. McFadden, Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Our firm, Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., is one of hundreds of
small firms that deal in ancient coins. As members of the trade in
cultural property, we take seriously our obligation to preserve and
protect the objects in which we deal, and we deplore the destruction or
theft of all objects of archaeological interest and the disruption of
archaeological sites. We also oppose any import restriction which would
apply to coins, for the reasons which follow, and we urge either that
H.R. 915 be defeated or that it be amended to provide a specific
exemption for coins.
Introduction
Ancient coins of the sort struck within the confines of present day
Afghanistan are extremely common, with millions of examples extant.
They have been avidly collected for hundreds of years and today are
dispersed among collections throughout the world. There is normally no
way to distinguish coins which have long resided in collections from
coins which have been recently excavated, and so a restriction on all
these coins would inevitably be an unreasonable restriction on vast
numbers of coins which have been in collections for decades or
centuries. American museums, dealers, and private collectors have all
played a major role in preserving and studying ancient coins, and
without their continuing efforts research and preservation of these
small tokens from the past would suffer greatly.
Furthermore, restrictions on the importation of ancient coins would
not provide any significant protection to archaeological sites because
few ancient coins are actually found in archaeological strata. The
coins in exceptional condition which are valued by collectors are
almost always found in savings or emergency hoards deposited outside
any archaeological stratum. As a result, these ``hoard coins'' are not
of use for dating any related archaeological context.
Among the many arguments why it is fair and reasonable to permit
Americans to import, collect, and study ancient coins, we would like to
focus here--from our perspective as a dealer in ancient coins--on why
any restriction would be unworkable from a practical standpoint.
1. Ancient Coins Exist in Enormous Quantities
Coins are perhaps the commonest relics of antiquity. Millions and
millions of ancient coins have been found. One can understand the
desire of a country to prevent the loss of unique items of cultural
significance, but coins do not fall into this category. The vast
majority of coins are common items, existing in a great many similar or
nearly identical examples. Due to the numbers involved, if coins were
brought into any regime of import restriction, the potential burdens
would be enormous, for collectors, dealers and U.S. Customs. Our
company alone imports well over 10,000 ancient coins per year into the
U.S., and we are only one of more than 100 dealers who import ancient
coins. How would we manage to produce documentation to comply with
import restrictions, and how would U.S. Customs manage to analyze and
process such documentation?
2. The Place of Manufacture of an Ancient Coin May Be Unknown
Not only is the number of coins enormous, but the difficulty of
identifying the origin of each piece may be likewise great. In dealing
with a restriction on items of Afghani ``origin'', it may be impossible
to determine even whether a particular coin was made in Afghanistan.
For much of recorded history, part or all of Afghanistan has been
within the boundaries of various great imperial powers: the Persians,
Alexander the Great and his successors, the Parthians, the Sasanians,
the Kushans, the Scythians, the Mongols, the Mughals, and others. These
empires typically controlled large areas unrelated to modern borders
and issued coins at numerous mints, the precise location of which may
not be known. Hence it may simply be impossible to say whether a
particular coin was made within the borders of modern day Afghanistan
or elsewhere.
3. Even if the Place of Minting is Known, This Has Little Bearing on
Determining a Find Spot
In the ancient world, coins often circulated far from their point
of origin. Coins issued in one part of a great empire, for example,
regularly circulated in other parts. Accordingly, even if one does know
where a coin was minted, this is no guide as to where it may have
ultimately come to rest. Indeed, coins were items of trade, valued for
their metal content, and are found far outside the borders of whatever
authority issued them. To scrutinize every coin that may possibly have
been minted in Afghanistan, in order to determine whether it may also
have been found in Afghanistan, would place an enormous burden on
dealers, collectors, and customs agents. Moreover, in almost every
case, even with the best intentions and most diligent effort, a find
site would simply be impossible to determine.
4. Actual Provenance of Ancient Coins Is Amost Always Unavailable
Modern collecting of ancient coins began in the Renaissance.
Initially the province of royalty and aristocracy, collecting spread to
the educated elite and then to the middle classes. Ancient coins have
long been collected by Americans as tangible links to our cultural
origins, and prominent American collectors have included John Quincy
Adams, Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan. During the intervening
several hundred years since the Renaissance, coins have been collected,
have traded hands, and have moved across borders largely unhindered.
Only occasionally has the actual find spot of a coin been recorded and
retained with the coin to the present time. Coins are by their nature
portable items, and it is not unusual today for a coin to change hands
several times during a week or even a day at one of the international
coin conventions. The field is highly international, in that dealers
and collectors routinely travel to buy coins. Major international
conventions are held every year in New York, Chicago, London, Paris,
Zurich, Munich, Berlin, Verona, and many other cities. Dealers and
collectors visit these conventions to buy and sell. A dealer from
Norway may bring a coin to a convention in New York, sell it to a
dealer from Spain, who then sells it to another dealer, and so on. Any
history that may have been attached to a coin can vanish quickly. Even
a coin that has graced important collections over the past century or
longer may appear on the market without any record of its modern
history. Accordingly, the provenance of a coin is normally unknown. To
require an importer to produce such a provenance would be to require
the impossible.
5. Import Restrictions Would Be an Unfair Hindrance to Collecting
As suggested above, it is extremely difficult to identify coins
which may have been exported from Afghanistan. First, one may not even
know where a coin was originally minted. Second, even if one knows the
mint, this is no indication of where the coin was found. Third,
regardless of where a coin may have been found, it may have a long,
legitimate, and indeed distinguished--but unknown--modern history.
Any import restrictions on coins would create a considerable and
unfair burden for U.S. collectors and dealers, as well as U.S. Customs.
Moreover, the difficulty of determining the modern provenance of
ancient coins would render such restrictions ineffective in actually
identifying items to be excluded. The result, therefore, would be the
creation of a costly and burdensome customs regime which would unfairly
disadvantage American museums, collectors, and dealers.
Wheaton, IL 60187
August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of
Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am an archaeologist and have a general interest in preservation
of Archaeological sites. I work in Peru, where the pace of destruction
of sites is so rapid that my small excavations, often only a single
test pit 3 x 6 ft in size, are likely to be the only work ever carried
out before these ancient places are destroyed. I know that all sites
cannot be preserved, but I believe it is important to try and same some
of them.
For this reason, I am writing to urge your support for including
H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act
(``A bill to authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
I hope my children will one day be able to visit Afghanistan and
see its ancient treasures in the places where they were first created.
You can help realize this dream by protecting Afghan national
treasures.
Best wishes,
Winifred Creamer
(Professor of Anthropology,
Northern Illinois University,
Dekalb, IL 60115)
Pasadena, California 91105
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am an Afghan-American woman living in the U.S. and I am writing
to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of
the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President
to take certain actions to protect archaeological or ethnological
materials of Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act
grants authority to the President to impose emergency import
restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations,
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States.
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites.
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Soraya Delawari Dancsecs
Mark Stephen Dancsecs
San Diego, California 92127
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive fort heft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Qudrat Delawari
Yasmine Delawari
Bethel, CT 06801
August 29, 2005
This letter is in regard to H.R. 915, a bill currently under
consideration in the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means
Committee.
This bill, although laudable in its stated purpose of preserving
the cultural heritage of Afghanistan, creates more problems than it
solves. Most significantly, it turns law abiding American citizens into
the victims of the failed enforcement of laws in other countries. Some
of the most notable faults of this bill are:
1. It is excessive in scope and proposes to restrict importation
into the United States of even minor, insignificant objects, like
coins, simply because they are old.
2. The justifications presented in this bill are grossly
inaccurate. Claims of 100% looting of the Kabul Museum have been proven
unfounded by a special report of the National Geographic Society which
shows that the museum's greatest treasures were always secure in
storage and purposely not revealed by international archaeologists.
Nevertheless, the inflammatory and false claims of loss continue to be
presented as justification for passage of H.R. 915.
3. U.S. Import restrictions on antiquities, especially on coins,
would do nothing to diminish site looting in Afghanistan and would have
an extremely detrimental effect on the private scholarship and cultural
interaction that these coins have fostered for several centuries.
If import restrictions are deemed essential, please at least exempt
coins and other minor objects from the list of considered objects.
Coins, by their very nature as tokens of commerce, were struck in the
millions and purposely intended to circulate as widely as possible.
They are not cultural property or national treasures but belong to
anyone, anywhere, who has obtained them through fair and legal
exchange.
I ask you not to support this bill.
Paul DiMarzio
Oxford, Ohio 45056
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it. As a student of the classics at Miami
University, I have an immense appreciation and support the building and
maintaining Afghanistan's cultural heritage.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the
UnitedStates has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan.
Concern for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must
be given equal consideration.Sites are looted of antiquities so that
they can be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United
States. It is crucial that the President be given this authority to
prevent the import into the United States of looted cultural materials
and thereby reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of
archaeological sites. Enactment of this legislation will help the
United States to fulfill its obligations to the Afghan people and help
to enrich our understanding of the world's and our own cultural
heritage.
Tara Eagle
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
August 19, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States.
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites.
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Dr. Suzanne L. Eckert
Department of Anthropology
Engineering and Science Students for the Reconstruction of
Afghanistan (ESSRA)
Fremont, CA 33273
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Masood Sattari
Executive Director
[By permission of the Chairman:]
European Association of Archaeologists, University of Exeter
Exeter, United Kingdom
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw
I write to you as President of the European Association of
Archaeologists, an organisation representing more than 1000
professional archaeologists from all countries of Europe and several
outside it, especially the United States. My Board has been alarmed to
hear of the illegal excavation and export of antiquities from
Afghanistan, and their subsequent appearance on the market in the U.S.
and elsewhere, including western Europe.
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
Looting of archaeological sites and museums, and despoliation of
other monuments is a problem world-wide, but this is especially so in
countries that are facing problems of law and order, as is the case in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan has a rich heritage of sites and
monuments, which the illegal removal of antiquities and art objects
destroys. Objects removed from their context may be valuable on the
market as art items but are useless in terms of scientific
understanding. Short-term financial gain for a few destroys long-term
knowledge for everyone else.
The looting of sites and museums occurs so that objects can be sold
on to markets in countries where rich art collectors live, principally
western Europe and the United States. Poor people in the affected areas
understandably seek immediate financial reward from objects they can
easily recover from the ground. The only effective way to prevent such
looting is to remove the market for such objects. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's cultural heritage.
Professor Anthony Harding
President
Wabash College
Louisville, KY 40205
August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I taught at Wabash College in Indiana for forty years and, during
that time, I was involved in Greece with several archaeological
excavations. I care deeply for artifacts and feel that they should stay
in their country of origin. The United States should do everything in
its power to stop illicit trade in looted antiquities.
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
John E. Fischer
Professor of Classics, Emeritus
Waltham, MA 02451
August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman,
I am writing to urge that you do not support H.R. 915, a bill
currently under consideration in the Trade Subcommittee of the House
Ways and Means Committee. If import restrictions are deemed essential,
please at least exempt coins and other minor objects from the list of
considered objects.
As a private collector of ancient coins, I feel such import
restrictions are unnecessary and undesirable for several reasons:
1) Ancient coins are not natural treasures. They were made for the
sole intention of enabling commerce, and for that reason often
circulated far beyond an individual nation's borders. As noted in the
introductory text of H.R. 915, Afghanistan was the crossroads of many
civilizations in ancient times. It has therefore thrived on the flow of
coins in international trade.
2) Ancient coins are also typically not found associated with
important archeological sites, having been lost by chance or buried in
isolated context by their original owner's during times of crisis.
Therefore ancient coins rarely have contextual archeological value as
do other objects of cultural heritage, which I fully agree need to be
preserved and protected.
3) The right to private ownership is one of the most important
rights that we Americans enjoy. However, increasingly this right is
coming under attack. Ancient coin collecting has been a popular pursuit
for many centuries. The imposition of import restrictions could
severely damage the hobby of numismatics and the many small businesses
in the United States that are based upon it.
4) Import restrictions assume incorrectly that it is feasible for
Customs agents to rely on generic lists to identify coins of Afghani
origin that require documentation. This places an unreasonable burden
on importers of coins, which typically lack a provenance as to where
and when they were found.
5) Ancient coins were struck in the uncounted millions or even
billions and circulated across the known world in antiquity, as well as
in recent centuries as collectables. Documentation requirements would
place a severe burden of proof on collectors and potentially cloud the
title of millions of historical coins that already exist in collectors'
hands in the United States. International commerce in coins would be
inhibited due to the fear of unjustified seizure.
I strongly request your help so that collectors such as myself will
continue to enjoy and learn from the hobby of collecting ancient coins.
Please ensure that Congress takes action to see that the issues
described above are dealt with before this legislation becomes law.
Dr. Kevin P. Foley
University of California
Santa Barbara, California 93106
August 23, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am an archaeologist at the University of California Santa
Barbara. I have been working in the realm of cultural heritage
conservation in Mesoamerican and in the Maya area, and have a great
concern for cultural resources around the world.
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in
theMiscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the
President to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import
into theUnited States of antiquities and other cultural materials that
have been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. While
Afghanistan is not the only area I am concerned with it is yet another
example of the need to protect cultural heritage in situ and is
important an example of respect for the local value and
irreparabilityof these antiquities.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it. Conservation of the cultural
contexts are critical, removing items as art and displacing their
context reduces value and importance to local inhabitants and scholars
alike.
Looting world wide has taken on terrible proportions.
Archaeological sites have fallen prey to western interests in art over
the centuries.The looting of sites and theft from museums in
Afghanistan have been significant problems for many years. As with
Iraq, the United Stateshas undertaken a special relationship with
Afghanistan. Concern for preservation of the cultural heritage of
Afghanistan must be given equal consideration. We have recognized
bilateral conventions following the UNESCO conventions on antiquities.
This will reinforce these global positions. Afghanistan's own
traditions are at risk and this should not be exacerbated. Sites are
looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately to markets in
the developed world, particularly the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Dr. Anabel Ford
New York, New York 10025
August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Gregg Gardner
[By permission of the Chairman:]
German Archaeological Institute
Cairo, Egypt
August 25, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
I am sending you this model letter to avoid any formal mistakes on
my side. However, I would like to add that as a former associate
professor of Egyptian Archaeology and History at the University of
California, Los Angeles, and current associate director of the German
Archaeological Institute Cairo, I am well aware of the serious damage
to the world's cultural heritage caused by illicit activities on
various levels in connection with the international antiquities trade
and art market. We are facing the results of these illicit activities
almost daily even in a country like Egypt where there is a well-
organized and efficient national Antiquities Organization. The current
situation in Afghanistan does not allow such a sufficient control of
the numerous historical and archaeological sites in that country.
Civilized nations like the United States of America with the highest
possible moral and ethic standards are, in my opinion, not only
supposed to support the preservation of any cultural heritage on this
planet, they are oblidged to do so.
Dr. Daniel Polz
Associate Director
Castro Valley, California 94552
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Mostafa Ghous
HRA, Inc.
Conservation Archaeology
Henderson, Nevada 89014
August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
My name is Suzanne Eskenazi, and I am an archaeologist working in
Las Vegas, Nevada. Although most of my work takes place in southern
Nevada and southwestern Utah, I have always been interested in
archaeology around the world. The initial spark for my interest in
archaeology occurred in high school, when I studied the ``fertile
crescent'' and areas around Afghanistan. I was completely enchanted by
the ancient civilizations that lived in that region. This is why I am
contacting you. Recently, it has come to my attention that a bill (H.R.
915) is soon to be voted on that involves the antiquities of
Afghanistan.
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States.
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites.
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Please, help support the bill that will protect stolen artifacts
from Afghanistan. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Suzanne B. Eskenazi, M.A., R.P.A.
Archaeologist
Industry Council for Tangible Assets
Severna Park, Maryland
August 10, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to express my concerns about a piece of legislation
authorizing import restrictions relating to Afghan artifacts (H.R. 915)
that appears to be ready to be folded into the Miscellaneous Trade
Bill. ICTA is the national trade association for the rare coin/precious
metals/currency industry.
Congress should exempt coins from any such restrictions. If that is
not feasible, Congress should refer the matter to the U.S. Cultural
Property Advisory Committee for consideration or, at the very least,
severely limit Customs' authority to seize coins without conclusive
proof that they were illegally removed from Afghan institutions or
archaeological sites.
Import restrictions on coins are unnecessary because:
Coins are not national treasures.
Coins can only be found easily with metal detectors.
Regulation of metal detectors is the most effective and fair way of
dealing with looting of archaeological sites for tiny metal objects
like coins.
On the other hand, imposition of import restrictions could severely
damage the hobby of numismatics and with it the study and preservation
of historical coins in the U.S.
Import restrictions wrongly assume that Customs can
reasonably rely on generic lists of coins that circulated in
Afghanistan to trigger an importer's obligation to document country of
origin. However, such an assumption places an impossible burden on
importers of coins. Coins typically lack a ``provenance.'' It is quite
unusual to know where or when a specific coin may have been excavated.
Historical coins were struck in the millions and
circulated widely in antiquity as hard currency and in more recent
times as collectibles. Placing the burden of proof on collectors to
show ``provenance'' could ``cloud the title'' to hundreds of thousands,
if not millions, of historical coins already in collections here and
abroad. Such coins could not travel in international commerce without
fear of unjustified detention and seizure.
Your assistance in ensuring that Congress take action to ensure
that the problems described above are dealt with before this
legislation becomes law will be greatly appreciated.
ICTA's members would appreciate hearing your position on this issue
and would be pleased to provide any technical assistance you and the
Committee might require to assist your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Eloise A. Ullman
Executive Director
Frankfort, Michigan
August 29, 2005
Dear Sirs:
Please do not support H.R. 915, a bill currently under
consideration in the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Import restrictions on coins are unnecessary because. Coins are not
national treasures. Coins were struck in the millions and circulated
widely in antiquity as hard currency and in more recent times as
collectables.
On the other hand, imposition of import restrictions could severely
damage the hobby of numismatics, and with it the study and preservation
of historical coins in the U.S.:
Import restrictions wrongly assume that Customs can reasonably rely
on generic lists of coins that circulated in Afghanistan to trigger an
importer's obligation to document country of origin. However, many of
the coin types that circulated in Afghanistan circulated throughout the
ancient world. Furthermore, most ancient coins are discovered as
individual surface finds and typically lack provenance. Allowing
Customs to demand source documentation would place an impossible burden
on importers of coins.
Placing the burden of proof on collectors to show provenance could
cloud the title to millions of historical coins already in collections
here and abroad. Such coins could not travel in international commerce
without fear of unjustified detention and seizure.
Your assistance in ensuring that Congress takes action to ensure
that the problems described above are dealt with before this
legislation becomes law will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kevin W. Ingleston
Statement of Peter K. Tompa, International Association of Professional
Numismatists, Professional Numismatists Guild, and the Ancient Coin
Collectors Guild*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN)
is a nonprofit organization of the leading international numismatic
firms founded in 1951. The objects of IAPN are the development of a
healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the
highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice. The IAPN
has 113 member firms in 21 countries, including 31 in the United
States. More about the IAPN may be found on the internet at http://
www.iapn-coins.org.
The Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) is a nonprofit
organization founded in 1955. The PNG's motto, ``Knowledge, Integrity,
and Responsibility'' continues to reflect its aims, and is expressed in
the strict requirements for election to membership to the PNG. The PNG
has over 300 members across the United States and abroad. More about
the PNG may be found on the internet at http://pngdealers.com.
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) is a nonprofit
organization founded in response to efforts to restrict the public's
right to collect, preserve and study ancient coins. The purposes of the
ACCG are to promote and nurture the free and independent collecting of
coins from antiquity through education, political action and consumer
protection. The ACCG currently has approximately 450 members and 14
affiliated numismatic clubs. More about the ACCG can be found on the
internet at http://accg.us/.
Peter K. Tompa is a partner at Dillingham & Murphy, LLP. Peter K.
Tompa has collected and studied ancient coins for over 25 years. He
also has written extensively on the potential impact of cultural
patrimony laws on coin collecting. Most recently, he is a contributor
to a chapter on numismatics in Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy,
Cultural Property, and the Law (K. Fitz Gibbon ed. Rutgers 2005). He is
a registered lobbyist for IAPN and PNG who he is representing in this
matter for a fee as well as a member of the ACCG Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Association of Professional Numismatists
(``IAPN''), the Professional Numismatists Guild (``PNG'')and the
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (``ACCG'') respectfully submit this
statement in support of common sense measures to protect Afghanistan's
cultural heritage and against the anti-small business and anti-coin
collector remedy of ``emergency import restrictions'' authorized under
the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. By
their very nature, any import restrictions on coins will not just
impact trade between the U.S. and Afghanistan. Rather, such
restrictions could greatly hamper--and thus endanger--all legitimate
trade in ancient and early modern historical coins that remotely
``look'' like they may have once circulated in Afghanistan. Given the
huge potential for damage to the entire international numismatic
community, any such decision to impose import restrictions pursuant to
the Act on coins must not be made lightly.
Afghanistan has suffered greatly from tyranny and war, but has
there really been a case made that ``emergency import restrictions'' on
antiquities must be imposed, and if so, will any such prescription make
the situation better or worse in Afghanistan, and at what cost to the
small businesses, collectors and academics interested in coins that
make up the American numismatic community?
There is a legitimate question why such legislation is really
necessary. As IAPN and PNG have previously reported, one of the major
predicates for the legislation--Finding 16 stating that 100% of the
objects in the Afghan National Museum were ``stolen'' and vandalized--
is simply untrue.\1\ Moreover, it is unclear why Congress is yet again
being drawn into the philosophical morass associated with the Cultural
Property Debate \2\ when Afghanistan itself is fully capable of taking
the steps necessary to request imposition of import restrictions
utilizing normal diplomatic channels.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter from Peter K. Tompa to The Hon. Phil English, dated
March 9, 2005 (copied to the entire House Ways and Means Committee
Membership) (noting that these reports were already being questioned
before H.R. 915 was introduced). As set forth in detail in this and in
the ``ACCG, IAPN and PNG Statement of Facts and Arguments Regarding
Afghanistan, Coins and H.R. 4641, appended to letter of Arthur L.
Friedberg, President of IAPN, to Congressman Phil English, dated July
9, 2004, it is Afghan war lords--some of whom are evidently associated
with the present Afghan Government--that were responsible for
destroying the Afghan National Museum and allegedly selling off some as
yet undetermined amount of its contents. Moreover, the same war lords
(or tribal leaders) are said to largely control the trade in
antiquities being excavated in the countryside.
\2\ What largely was an academic debate over cultural property
issues between academic archaeologists on one hand and high-end
antiquities collectors and museum professionals on the other, has now
spilled over into public policy, impacting a much larger group of
Americans--like the estimated 50,000 Americans who collect ancient
coins as well as the small businesses of the numismatic trade. In any
event, largely influenced by similarly overblown reports of the looting
of the Iraq National Museum, Congress passed legislation authorizing
similar ``emergency import restrictions'' on Iraqi cultural goods last
year.
\3\ Afghanistan has had a functioning government for some years.
That government could sign and ratify the UNESCO Treaty which would
entitle it to make a request for import restrictions under the
procedures contemplated in the Convention on Cultural Property
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2601-2613.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill also touches upon larger political issues, sending the
``wrong message'' to the people we need to really need to influence--
the common citizens of Afghanistan (as opposed to sundry academic
archaeologists and cultural property bureaucrats). In particular, the
proposed legislation is ``anti-democratic'' at a time the United States
is trying to foster democracy and freedom in countries like
Afghanistan. Coin collectors and dealers support efforts narrowly
tailored to protect archaeological sites and public and private
collections in third countries. However, the assumption behind the
present legislation is that the U.S. should encourage Afghanistan to
establish the broadest possible controls on any item that it deems
``old.'' Such a rule is wholly inappropriate for budding democracy and,
indeed, harkens back to the dark days of Afghanistan's previous
Communist and Taliban regimes.
In any event, Congress should not take the precipitous step of
authorizing ``emergency import restrictions''--particularly ones
including coins--without granting the U.S. numismatic community a full
opportunity to be heard at Congressional hearings or before the U.S.
Cultural Property Advisory Committee (``CPAC''), the body normally
charged with advising the President on such matters. In the absence of
being provided such an opportunity, IAPN, PNG and ACCG respectfully
request that the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade consider
the following facts and suggestions before incorporating the Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act into the
Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
A. Congress Should Be Supportive of Private Efforts to Preserve,
Study and Display Ancient Coins--Collecting Fosters Appreciation of
Afghan Culture and There Are Far Too Many Ancient Coins Extant to Be
Sole Preserve of Sundry Archaeologists and Cultural Property
Bureaucrats.
Numismatists Care About Coins; Archaeologists Only Care
About ``Context.'' Numismatics, the study of coins, began in the
Renaissance. Numismatics predates archaeology by several centuries.
Unlike archaeologists, numismatists treat coins as far more than a
means to the limited end of dating archaeological sites.\4\ Instead,
numismatists have interpreted coins as part of a larger political,
military and economic context of the society which issued them. Indeed,
much of what we know about the Greek kingdoms of ancient Afghanistan
derives from the study of their coins. Moreover, unlike archaeologists,
numismatists also have accepted the obligation to preserve, popularize
and display their coins. The obsession of many archaeologists solely
with the context in which an object is found has all too often meant
that common artifacts like coins are either sacrificed in the process
of dating archaeological stratum or left to deteriorate in poor storage
conditions once they serve that limited purpose.\5\ If anything,
archaeologists are far more detrimental to coins than coin collectors
are to preservation of the archaeological record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Archaeologists frequently see coins as little more than just
one tool to date archaeological sites, and treat them accordingly. See
e.g., John Casey, Understanding Ancient Coins: An Introduction for
Archaeologists and Historians 7 (B.T. Batsford 1986) (``An
archaeologist was heard to remark that `Coins are only well dated
pieces of metal.' He was of course wrong: coins are not usually well
dated nor are they necessarily of metal. But these small technical
points aside, the drift of the comment well reflects the place coin
studies have occupied in the archaeological world. Coins are perceived
as dating evidence, as art objects and as unique species of evidence
that is best left to the numismatist and confined to the museum strong
room at the earliest possible moment. It is the purpose of this short
book to bring to the attention of archaeologists and historians
something of the full potential of coin evidence.'').
\5\ See Frank L. Holt, Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic
Bactria 109 (University of California Press 1999) (``Even some
advocates of the `New Archaeology,' which treats every shred of
evidence (even stray seeds and splinters) with utmost care, seem all
too willing to sacrifice bronze coins. At Kourion, for example, the
excavation director speaks of a `power struggle' over the handling of
stray coins: `I needed the coins cleaned as soon as possible for
purposes of dating and identification; but the conservators, as is
their wont, lobbied for the safest and slowest methods. The reader will
perhaps not be surprised to learn that the dig director won out,
particularly since the coins were hardly art treasures, and were in
very bad shape.' Bronze coins have long been valued as chronological
indicators and little more; old habits die hard.''); Peter K. Tompa
(unattributed author), ``Mary Washington College Presents Symposium,''
American Numismatic Society Magazine 8, 10 (Spring 2002) (noting that
the common view that coins are only valuable as evidence for dating
archaeological strata and not as objects in themselves probably helps
explain why there are so few site publications, why find spots are not
always recorded, and why smaller coins are not even recovered.).
Ancient Coins as a Class are Extremely Common. Coins
reached Afghanistan in the 5th C. BC when it was a province of the
Achaemenid Empire of Iran. (Primary Source: J. Cribb, B. Cook and I.
Carradice, The Coin Atlas 163-167 (MacDonald & Co. 1990)). Early issues
of the Greek and Persian cities of the Eastern Mediterranean circulated
based on their value as precious metal (bullion). Some of the first
coins that circulated in the area included Athenian Tetradrachms. These
large silver coins, weighing approximately 17 grams, bear a depiction
of the Goddess Athena on the obverse, and her familiar, the Owl, on the
reverse. Persian governors (satraps) struck copies of these ``Owls''
before Alexander conquered the area in 329 BC. Alexander's successors
struck coins in Bactria (Northern Afghanistan). Many issues are notable
for their fine portraiture. Since that time, coins were struck in what
is now Afghanistan by the Mauryan Empire, the Kushan Empire, the White
Huns, the Turks, the Mongols, and the Savids. Millions of such coins
circulated throughout Central Asia, Pakistan and parts of India. In
addition, ``foreign'' coins, like those issued by the Sassanian
Persians and Romans, also circulated in the area by the thousands upon
thousands. In this regard, it is important to note ancient mintages
could be quite large. For example, ``Francois de Callatay [a Belgian
scholar] has calculated that 28,000,000 Alexander [the Great] drachms
were produced in Asia Minor down to 300 B.C.E.; Martin Price [a British
scholar] more than doubled that estimate for this single denomination
in one region of the empire.'' (Frank Holt, Alexander the Great and the
Mystery of the Elephant Medallions 140 (University of California Press
2003).) Indeed, historical coins are so numerous with millions of
examples extant that stewardship of the world's numismatic heritage
requires interested members of the public to collect, study, conserve
record and publish historical coins both individually and collectively
through membership in and support of organizations such as the American
Numismatic Association and the American Numismatic Society.
Coins are not National Treasures. Ancient coins struck in
Afghanistan have been widely collected and traded by Westerners since
at least the early 1800's.\6\ Even in recent times, the Afghan
government did not treat coins as national treasures. In the pre-
Communist era (before1978), ancient coins were sold openly in antiques
shops on Chicken Street and Pakistani Embassy Street in Kabul. Traders
would also sell thousands of coins in parks where they would be
displayed on rugs. Tribal leaders, militia commanders and local people
who continue to sell coins presumably believe that they are only
following that tradition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ English gentlemen who served with the British colonial
administration in India formed many notable collections. As early as
1832, British adventurer Charles Masson began collecting coins in
Afghanistan. (Elizabeth Errington, Discovering Ancient Afghanistan, The
Masson Collection, Minerva Vol. 13 No. 6 at 53 (Nov./Dec. 2002). Masson
himself estimated that he collected some 60,000 coins during his
travels in the country from 1833-1838. (Id.) English collector/scholars
also included Dr. Richard Bertram Whitehead (1879-1967). His Notes on
Indo-Greek Numismatics (reprinted in Whitehead, Indo-Greek Numismatics
(Argonaut 1969)), gives some sense of the collector spirit of the time,
``I record some general observations, based on my sixteen years'
experience as an active collector in the Punjab, on the position and
extent of the dominions of the Bactrian Greeks in India under Heliocles
and his successors, as deduced more especially from the find spots,
distribution, and monograms of their coins.'' (Id. at 294.) Americans
also have long enjoyed collecting, studying and preserving coin types
that circulated in the area of modern Afghanistan. A number of
prominent American collectors bought ancient coins in Afghanistan
during its heyday as a tourist destination in the 1960's and early
1970's. Of course, coins of the type that circulated in Afghanistan
have also been available for purchase in the U.S. for many decades. For
example, a noted collection formed primarily in the 1940's and 1950's
by Archaeological Institute of America Trustee and American Numismatic
Society Council Member Arthur Dewing contained examples of coins issued
by Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Scythian rulers. (Leo Mildenberg and Silvia
Hurter, The Arthur S. Dewing Collection Nos. 2716-2731 (ANS 1985).)
B. Congress Should Consider the Practical Problems Associated with
the Proposed Legislation--Particularly to the Small Business of the
Numismatic Trade--Before Making a Grand But Inherently Flawed Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Support of Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage.
The Import Restrictions Authorized in H.R. 915 are Anti-
Small Business. The House recently passed H. Res. 22 calling for a
``Small Business Bill of Rights,'' but H.R. 915 is profoundly troubling
on a practical, business related level to the small businesses that
comprise the numismatic trade. In particular, the suggested remedy of
import restrictions is grossly overbroad and can only lead to an import
ban on any coin type deemed to have possibly come from Afghanistan. In
fact, import restrictions presuppose that a coin was in Afghanistan in
the first place when in all likelihood the truth is the opposite. The
bill supposedly aims to fight looting of archaeological sites in
Afghanistan, but it does so by authorizing U.S. Customs to seize coins
entering the United States from third countries solely because they
``look'' similar to like kind items on a Department of State/U.S.
Customs web site. In order to avoid detention and seizure, any small
business importing coins will be required to certify: (1) that the coin
in question (a) left Afghanistan before imposition of import
restrictions; or (b) left Afghanistan accompanied by an export
certificate. This burden is simply an impossible one for the small
businesses of the numismatic trade to meet. Coins that circulated in
Afghanistan cannot be distinguished from those that circulated in
Northern India, Pakistan, Central Asia or elsewhere. Now placing the
burden of proof on collectors, coin dealers, and museums to show
``provenance'' could, therefore, ``cloud the title'' to hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of historical coins already in collections
here and abroad. Such coins could not travel in international commerce
without fear of unjustified detention and seizure.
The Rationale for H.R. 915 Rests on a Falsehood. One of
the major predicates for the bill's ``emergency import restrictions''
is the claim at Finding 16 that, ``100 percent of the objects [from the
Kabul National Museum] were stolen and vandalized.'' However, it has
long been reported that most of the important items thought to be
missing from the Afghan National Museum (including coins) have in fact
been found in excellent condition. (See National Geographic News:
Afghan Gold Treasures Photo Gallery (http://
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/photogalleries/
afghan_treasure/photo3.html)(picture of Greco-Bactrian coins,
captioned, ``These ten silver Greco-Bactrian coins are part of the
nearly 2,000 silver and gold coins recovered in a National Geographic
project. The coins are among the many Afghan museum artifacts saved
from 25 years of war and political upheaval.'')). It is indeed
unfortunate that such erroneous information continues to be used as the
predicate for passage of this legislation.
The Proposed Legislation Will Do Nothing to Discourage
Looting. Restrictions on the import of coins into the United States
will not impact any looting in Afghanistan because they will not
diminish the power of war lords (many of whom are also members of the
Afghan Government) who control the trade or the destitution of farmers,
who sell artifacts they find in order to help them survive in one of
the poorest countries on earth. Nor will import restrictions enforced
by U.S. Customs impact the market in Pakistan where Afghan coins are
sold freely with those found locally. Even if restrictions make coins
worthless as collectibles (as the proponents of restrictions hope) it
will only encourage destitute Afghans to melt them down as bullion to
recover their metallic value.\7\ No one--not even archaeologists or
cultural property bureaucrats-- would be served by such a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In that part of the world, old coins are likely to be melted
for their bullion value if they are not saved by numismatists. See
e.g., Osmund Bopearachchi & Klaus Grigo, ``Thundering Zeus Revisited,''
169 Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 22 (Autumn 2001) (noting
that numismatists were only able to save approximately 70 coins from a
hoard of Bactrian gold coins found in India after a jeweler had melted
some of the coins.).
C. Congress Should Focus on Common Sense Measures that Foster
Appreciation of Afghanistan's Culture Both Here and in Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Itself.
The Subcommittee Should Limit Import Restrictions to
Items of Undeniable Cultural Significance. Congress should reject the
underlying assumptions behind overbroad import restrictions that
anything ``old'' automatically should be considered property of a
foreign state, that any artifact without a demonstrable ``provenance''
(``chain of custody'') must be considered ``stolen,'' and that only a
limited number of archaeologists or foreign museum specialists should
be allowed to study and preserve remnants of the past. Instead,
Congress should only authorize import restrictions on items of
undeniable cultural significance and not common items that exist in
millions of examples like coins.
The Subcommittee Should Investigate Other Less Onerous
Measures. Congress should help Afghan officials explore more effective,
and far less onerous means to protect the archaeological record,
including better policing of archaeological sites, public education
programs, reasonable regulation of the sale and use of metal detectors,
and passage of fair laws that encourage members of the public in source
countries to report their finds with the prospect of a monetary reward.
Congress Should Help Afghanistan Set Up a Web Site to
Publicize Such Items That Remain Lost From the Afghan National Museum.
It is our understanding that most, if not all, of the most important
artifacts from the Afghan National Museum survived the Afghan Civil War
and Taliban rule despite prior, highly exaggerated reports to the
contrary. In any event, the best way to track down any items that may
remain missing from the Afghan National Museum is to construct a
comprehensive web site of these items that can be publicized to members
of the legitimate international antiquities trade. Such a web site
would encourage voluntary returns of any items still missing from the
Afghan National Museum without resort to draconian legislation based on
the erroneous assumption that objects without a known provenance must
be ``stolen.''
Congress Should Encourage Afghan Authorities to Adopt a
Law Like the United Kingdom's Treasure Act. Protecting sites is more
complex, but the best antidote to looting is the institution of a fair
system akin to the British Treasure Act. This is a reporting system
that awards finder fair value for items the state wants to retain for
its national collections. Other items are returned to the finder after
being recorded. Costs of such a system should be minimal, particularly
in places like Afghanistan where impoverished farmers will most likely
accept small amounts of money in return for such artifacts as they
find. In the United Kingdom, this law has been judged a success because
it recognizes that archaeologists and the state are not the only
parties with legitimate interests.\8\ In particular, the Treasure Act
provides state museums a right of first refusal, finders with the
prospect of a reward based on fair market value, dealers and collectors
with the prospect of access to coins with a demonstrable provenance,
and archaeologists with reports on finds that may lead to the discovery
of otherwise unknown archaeological sites. Efforts should be made to at
least explore whether a version of this law may work in Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For a critique of the elitism inherent in the present system of
international cultural property laws, see John Henry Merryman, Cultural
Property Internationalism 12 International J. of Cul. Prop.11 (2005).
For a description of the success of the Treasure Act, see e.g., Peter
A. Clayton, ``Treasure: Finding our Past,'' Vol. 15 No. 1 Minerva 8
(2004) (discussing success of Treasure Act); ``Arts Minister Estelle
Morris Welcomes Further Rise in Number of Treasure Finds and Says
Figure Likely to Reach 500 in 2004,'' Department for Culture, Media and
Sport Press Notices 142/04 (October 26, 2004) (``We've all dreamed of
uncovering hidden history, from ancient deeds in our attics to Saxon
gold in our gardens. Between them, the Treasure Report and the Portable
Antiquities Scheme report, which covers 47,000 items found by the
public last year, provide a comprehensive record of the public's most
recent discoveries-from the everyday to the truly extraordinary.'').
For an eloquent plea to Italy to adopt a law akin to the Treasure Act
and the complimentary ``Portable Antiquities Scheme,'' see Anna Somers
Cocks, ``Make the Citizen Your Ally if You Want to Save the Nation's
Past,'' The Art Newspaper 26 (Feb. 2005) (``It is many years since
archaeology has been principally a treasure hunt. Now that the real
treasure is information, and the finds, once recorded could
theoretically anywhere in the world without damaging the patrimony of
their find country and our global heritage.''). While it might be
suggested that Afghanistan could ill-afford such a system, the costs in
the ``First World'' United Kingdom have been minimal (₤ 1.3
million in 2003 according to Anna Somers Cocks), and must be contrasted
with very considerable costs in forcing compliance in addition to the
more difficult to calculate ``psychic'' costs associated with the ill-
will tough antiquities legislation may generate both in Afghanistan and
here in the United States.
At a Minimum, the Following Modifications Should be
Made to the Legislation. The concerns of coin collectors and coin
dealers can only be fully addressed with a ``coin exemption'' that
recognizes that there are simply too many historical coins circulating
world wide to be considered items of ``cultural significance'' for
which import restrictions are appropriate.\9\ Failing that IAPN, PNG
and ACCG suggest the following modifications to H.R. 915:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ After a meeting with Congressmen English and Leach in July
2003, the numismatic community received the commitment of both
Congressmen to press for a ``coin exemption'' in the bill they were
sponsoring on Iraqi antiquities. How this commitment was forgotten and
replaced with a bill that specifically authorizes import restrictions
on coins has raised considerable concern and disappointment within the
numismatic community. See e.g., B. Deisher, ``Lawmaker Turns Blind Eye
to Truth,'' Coin World 10 (March 21, 2005).
Factual findings 15-17 should be deleted in favor of a
more accurate statement concerning the justification for the proposed
legislation.
Meaningful review of any proposed import restrictions
by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee should be preserved.
Any specific reference that can be taken as a ``green
light'' to impose import restrictions on coins should be deleted.
The definition of ``archaeological or ethnological
material of Afghanistan'' must be modified to make clear that import
restrictions can only be imposed on archaeological objects of clear
``cultural significance'' that are at least 250 years old, and objects
of ethnological interest that are considered ``important to the
cultural heritage of a people because of their distinctive
characteristics, comparative rarity, or contribution to the knowledge
of the origins, development, or history of that people.''
U.S. Customs should be directed to only to enforce
restrictions on items where there is a ``reasonable suspicion'' that an
item was illegally removed from Afghanistan and such reasonable
suspicion cannot solely rest on the fact that an item being imported
bears a resemblance to a type of item known to have come from
Afghanistan.
Oxford, Ohio 45056
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs Bill. Afghanistan benefits from being know as the
crossroads of civilizations. This is where Alexander the Great defeated
Darius III, and marched his army through the Kunar Valley to reach
India, and houses the Silk Road which brought Roman glass and Chinese
lacquer. I could keep making a longer list of the events that have
happened in this country. To have such a history is a great achievement
to a country. Would you be happy if people smuggled American artifacts
to Europe and displayed them there or sold them for pocket change? I
don't think so; you would want these artifacts and objects to e safe in
a museum and to educate our population. Afghanistan is no different.
They wish to have their works of art exhibited for their people as
well. Afghanistan has suffered enough with the burning of their museums
stealing of artifacts, we should not let looters think what they are
doing is right. With the passing of this legislation we will have
started a trend to stop the pillaging of country's histories.
Please help us save the past for our future, thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Christine Jauch
Vassar College
Poughkeepsie, New York 12604
August 23, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am an archaeologist and professor, and one of my most important
tasks is teaching young people the importance of ethical behavior in
all that they do, both in their daily lives and in their archaeological
endeavors.
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Please support this legislation and show our students that not only
they, but also their government, can act in ethically responsible ways.
Sincerely,
Lucille Lewis Johnson
Professor of Anthropology
Encino, California 91436
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Matthew Johnson
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
August 23, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan
cultural institutions and other locations, particularly archaeological
sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Erin Kuns
PhD Candidate
Indiana University
Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation
Chicago, IL 60604
September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
I am submitting this letter on behalf of myself and the Lawyers'
Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation \1\ in support of the
inclusion of H.R. 915, Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of
Afghanistan''), in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This bill grants the
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions
under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) to
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from the cultural
institutions and archaeological sites of Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is an
association of lawyers who have joined together to promote the
preservation and protection of cultural heritage resources in the
United States and internationally through education and advocacy. I am
Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law and Director of
its Arts and Cultural Heritage Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan was the Central Asian crossroads and part of the Silk
route throughout much of ancient and medieval history and thus is the
location of sites and monuments of the Hellenistic, Gandharan, and
Persian, as well as Islamic, cultures. Afghanistan is perhaps best
known for the fusion of Ancient Greek and Indian cultures, which
produced its own distinctive artistic style. Afghanistan's cultural
repositories and archaeological sites have suffered extensively since
the 1970s--at the hands of Soviet occupiers, the mujahedeen, the
Taliban and general lawlessness and lack of effective civil authority.
The Kabul museum was attacked and looted numerous times. Despite the
routing of the Taliban in late 2001, Afghanistan's archaeological sites
and other cultural monuments outside of the main cities remain
vulnerable to looting and, in fact, are being looted on a considerable
scale.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the history of archaeology in Afghanistan and the impact of
war on Afghan cultural heritage over the past twenty-five years, see
Abdul Wasey Feroozi, The Impact of War upon Afghanistan's Cultural
Heritage, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological
Institute of America, January 3, 2004, available at: http://
www.archaeological.org/pdfs/papers/AIA_Afghanistan_address_lowres.pdf
(detailing with photographs the looting at such Afghan sites as Ai
Khanum, Balkh, Tepe Zargaran, Robatak, Samangan-Haibak, and Surkh
Kotal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archaeological sites are composed of layers of soil, each
containing a complex of artifacts, architectural remains, and floral
and faunal remains. Each layer represents a specific time period in the
history of the site and in human history. When a site is scientifically
excavated, each layer with all its associated remains can be
reconstructed to give a full picture of ancient life at a particular
time. Similar time capsules are represented by burials, which often
contain human remains and burial goods and can convey information about
religious customs and beliefs, economic status, health, and gender
roles. However, when a site is looted to obtain those artifacts prized
for sale on the international art market, this archaeological context
is forever lost, fragile remains are destroyed, and our ability to
fully reconstruct and understand the past is permanently diminished.
When sites are looted to obtain artifacts for sale on the international
market, those artifacts that are not desired by the market or those
that are incomplete are often discarded.
In 1983, the United States Congress enacted the Convention on
Cultural Property Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2601-13
(CPIA), implementing our ratification of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on
the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and recognizing that the
international trade in often looted archaeological objects contributes
significantly to the destruction of archaeological sites, the
irretrievable loss of scientific, cultural, and artistic information,
and the impoverishment of our and the world's historical record. When
Congress enacted and President Reagan signed the CPIA into law, the
Senate Report that accompanied the CPIA stated:
The expanding worldwide trade in objects of archaeological and
ethnological interest has led to wholesale depredations in some
countries, resulting in the mutilation of ceremonial centers and
archaeological complexes of ancient civilizations and the removal of
stone sculptures and reliefs. . . . The destruction of such sites and
the disappearance of the historic records evidenced by the articles
found in them has given rise to a profound national interest in joining
other countries to control the trafficking of such articles in
international commerce.
Senate Report No. 97-564.
The CPIA, in part, created a mechanism by which other nations that
are party to the Convention can request that the United States impose
import restrictions on designated categories of archaeological and
ethnological materials. Such materials cannot enter the United States
unless they have been legally exported from their country of origin or
left the country of origin before the effective date of the import
restrictions. The process by which the determination is made to impose
such restrictions is lengthy and burdensome to the requesting nation.
In addition, in order to submit a request for import restrictions, the
requesting nation must be a party to the 1970 Convention.
Afghanistan has not yet ratified the Convention and has therefore
been unable to bring such a request to the United States, despite the
significant looting of archaeological sites. The political stability
that Afghanistan had enjoyed under a centrist monarchy was shattered in
1973 when the monarchy was overthrown and decades of political chaos
ensued. During this period, it was impossible for Afghanistan to
fulfill the requirements for ratifying the Convention. Following
establishment of President Karzai's government, Afghanistan has been
progressing toward ratification, but this has required, among other
time-consuming tasks, the writing of new laws. Even once Afghanistan
ratifies the Convention, it would have to prepare a request with
supporting documentation, which would likely require several years,
unless H.R. 915 is enacted into law.
This legislation will allow the President to exercise his authority
under the CPIA to impose import restrictions on Afghan cultural
materials that have been looted and illegally removed from Afghanistan.
It would also eliminate the requirements that Afghanistan first ratify
the Convention and that Afghanistan submit a request to the United
States.
I and the Lawyers Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation
strongly support this legislation because it will provide a quick and
effective means of reducing the incentive to loot archaeological sites
and museums. In this way, the United States will be helping to fulfill
our special responsibilities to Afghanistan and to preserve the world's
cultural heritage. I and the Lawyers' Committee would be happy to
provide any technical assistance you or the Committee may wish in
enacting this legislation.
Patty Gerstenblith
Professor and President
The College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23185
August 26, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
I feel particularly strongly about this issue as a professional
archaeologist. I have lived outside of the United States for a number
of years during my education and work and I know that American scholars
are often looked to as representatives of their country both by the
scholarly and local communities in the countries where we carry out our
work. We are often asked questions about United States political policy
as it pertains to preserving and maintaining the culture and history of
our host countries. It is vital to the future of both the United States
and the rest of world to think beyond present events to ensure the
preservation of the extant remains of past world cultures. As an
archaeologist who is an American I know that we need to acknowledge and
celebrate the cultural heritage of other countries both for the general
edification of current and future populations, and so that we may
maintain the relationships that enable Americans to be in the forefront
of advances in all areas of scholarship.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Shawna Leigh
Visiting Assistant Professor
[By permission of the Chairman.]
Gteborg, Sweden
September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in
the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. As an archaeologist I am concerned
about the destruction of archaeological sites in Afghanistan which is
fuelled by market demand in Western countries, including the United
States.
I would like to point out that not only our common heritage is a
victim of the looting and illicit trade. It also takes a toll of human
lives. For example, in 2004 it was reported that four police officers
were murdered when dispatched to protect an archaeological site.
(D. van der Schriek ``Warlords loot Afghanstan's cultural heritage
with impunity'' Eurasia Insight, 10/08/04.) The article mentions that
local war lords fund their armies through antiquities smuggling.
I would also like to draw to your attention to that the illicit
antiquities trade may also have been used to fund terrorism. This
summer it was reported that the police investigation in Germany on the
terrorist cell in Hamburg had revealed that Muhammed Atta, allegedly
the pilot of one of the planes which crashed into World Trade Center,
had approached a German art historian to ask for advice on how to sell
``valuable antiquities'' from Afghanistan. According to the art
historian, Atta had mentioned that ``he wanted to purchase an
aircraft''.
It is not known, and will probably never be known, whether Atta
actually proceeded with his plans to sell antiquities, nor is it known
exactly how the September 11 attacks were funded, but the sheer
possibility that it may have been funded through antiquities smuggling
from Afghanistan, in my view, a strong argument in favor of imposing
emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the United
States of antiquities that have been illegally removed from Afghan.
Staffan Lunden
Westfield, New Jersey 07090
August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
As a professional archeologist and a concerned American citizen, I
am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological
materials of Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This
Act grants authority to the President to impose emergency import
restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations,
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
Archaeological sites are now being looted on an alarmingly large
scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has played an
important role in the world's historical and cultural development. The
looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, religious and
scientific information that may be derived through careful and
systematic investigation of sites. All people interested in prehistory,
history and the development of modern civilization should be concerned
about this issue. When the archaeological record is destroyed we are
all affected.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States.
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites.
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich global
understanding of the world's cultural heritage.
Very truly yours,
Sydne B. Marshall, Ph.D., RPA
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
August 30, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am a Professional Archaeologist and Assistant Professor of
Anthropology writing to you to urge your support for including H.R. 915
Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill
to authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. Such legislation is of worldwide, and
immediate, interest.
This Act grants authority to the President to impose emergency
import restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations,
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development.
This legislation is necessary due to the large-scale looting of
archaeological sites taking place in Afghanistan. The looting of sites
destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific information
that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation of sites.
When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Our
concern for the preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan
must be given equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the us, the United States of America, to
fulfill our obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our
understanding of the world's, and our own, cultural heritage.
Tanya M. Peres, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Las Cruces, NM 88012
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
I am writing to express my concerns about a piece of legislation
authorizing import restrictions relating to Afghan artifacts (H.R. 915)
that appears to be ready to be folded into the Miscellaneous Trade
Bill. Congress should exempt coins from any such restrictions. If that
is not feasible, Congress should refer the matter to the U.S. Cultural
Property Advisory Committee for consideration or, at the very least,
severely limit Customs' authority to seize coins without conclusive
proof that they were illegally removed from Afghan institutions or
archaeological sites.
Coins are not national treasures. Historical coins were struck in
the millions and circulated widely in antiquity as hard currency.
Consider the flow of dollars across borders today. Ancient coins
crossed borders in a similar way. Placing the burden of proof on
collectors to show ``provenance'' could ``cloud the title'' to hundreds
of thousands, if not millions, of historical coins already in
collections here and abroad. Such coins could not travel in
international commerce without fear of unjustified detention and
seizure.
Import restrictions wrongly assume that Customs can reasonably rely
on generic lists of coins that circulated in Afghanistan to trigger an
importer's obligation to document country of origin. However, such an
assumption places an impossible burden on importers of coins. Coins
typically lack a ``provenance.'' It is quite unusual to know where or
when a specific coin may have been excavated, or whether it has passed
through the centuries as a store of value.
Your assistance in ensuring that Congress take action to ensure
that the problems described above are dealt with before this
legislation becomes law will be greatly appreciated.
Robert O. Pick
[By permission of the Chairman:]
Oslo, Norway
August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am a Norwegian citizen writing to you to humbly urge your support
for including H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of
Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. Such legislation is
of worldwide interest.
This Act grants authority to the President to impose emergency
import restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations,
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Yours sincerely,
Josephine Munch Rasmussen
Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104
August 24, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw:
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs
bill. This Act grants authority to the President to impose
emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the United
States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have been
illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical,
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for
theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment of this
legislation will help the United States to fulfill its obligations to
the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding of the world's
and our own cultural heritage.
Paul Ray, Ph.D.
Director of Archaeological Publications
Seattle, WA 98112
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
Angela Redman
Saving Antiquities for Everyone
Jersey City, New Jersey 07310
September 6, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0922
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This gives the President the authority to
impose restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from Afghanistan.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, nearly four years after the
U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, 18,000 U.S. troops remain on the
ground there today. America's responsibilities to the fledgling
Afghanistan government are obvious. One of those duties is to respect
Afghan law.
Under Afghanistan law--the Code for the Protection of Antiquities
in Afghanistan (1958)--every Afghan antiquity (artistic relic and
monuments, moveable or immovable, dating prior to 1748) illegally
excavated and smuggled from that country is considered stolen property.
The Code for the Protection of Antiquities in Afghanistan has been
governing law since 1958.
The best way for the United States to voice its respect for Afghan
law is to pass H.R. 915, urge the Senate to pass similar legislation,
and present the final bill to the Presidential for his signature.
The seriousness of this issue becomes clear after reviewing the
large number of Afghan antiquities now in the U.S.--in major museums,
at universities and in private collections--that were illegally
excavated (looted) and smuggled from Afghanistan. Even though such
artifacts are considered stolen property by the Afghan government,
Americans continue to import and acquire these looted artifacts with
impunity--despite recent court rulings [United States v. Schultz, 333
F.2d 393 (2d Cir. 2003)] that make artifacts exported in violation of a
source country's laws and imported to the U.S. subject to the National
Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2314--15).
I trust you will support passage of H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation
of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. I thank you for giving this
matter your time and consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Cindy Ho
Society for American Archaeology
Washington, DC 20002
August 19, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
The Society for American Archaeology respectfully requests that
H.R. 915, the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization
Act, be included in the miscellaneous trade legislation package that
the subcommittee will consider later this year. This legislation would
serve a vital purpose by enabling the U.S. to assist Afghanistan in its
struggle against those who engage in the illicit excavation and
trafficking of its cultural heritage.
SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in
1934, has been dedicated to the research, interpretation, and
protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more
than 6,800 members, the Society represents professional archaeologists
in colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the
private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other
nations around the world.
H.R. 915 would amend the Cultural Property Implementation Act
(CPIA) to allow the President to impose emergency import restrictions
on antiquities and works of art illegally excavated and exported from
Afghanistan. Current law prevents the President from doing so. Under
the existing CPIA, nations that are suffering from looting, and that
are signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the prevention of
illicit trafficking in cultural property, can request that the U.S.
impose import restrictions on categories of cultural property that are
threatened by looters. These restrictions are designed to stanch the
importation of illegally-procured objects into the U.S. Unfortunately,
Afghanistan has not ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and thus
cannot ask the U.S. for such protection. H.R. 915 would allow the
President to impose such restrictions, upon the government of
Afghanistan's request, even though that nation is not a signatory to
the 1970 Convention. The restrictions would remain in effect until
September 30, 2010, or five years after the date upon which relations
between the U.S. and Afghan governments are established, whichever is
earlier.
There is no question that Afghanistan is suffering from an epidemic
of looting of its cultural resources. Two decades of near-constant war
have seen devastating amounts of damage inflicted on that country's
ancient and unique cultural heritage. The Afghan people, as well as the
world's peoples, are losing an immense and irreplaceable heritage. What
is lost is not only the objects, as important as they are, but also
knowledge of the past. When archaeological materials are
unscientifically removed from their resting places, an enormous amount
of information about the objects, the places they came from, and the
people who lived there, is lost. Quite often the objects themselves
disappear forever, sold on the black market or in auction houses under
fraudulent circumstances. Unfortunately, our nation is a major market
for such goods. That is why this legislation is so badly needed. The
import restrictions that H.R. 915 would make possible--while no
panacea--would make a substantial improvement in our ability to deter
the illegal excavation and trafficking of Afghan cultural materials.
The SAA respectfully requests the inclusion of H.R. 915 in the
upcoming omnibus trade legislation.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Ames
President
The Field Museum
Chicago, Illinois 60605
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
I am submitting this letter to urge your support for the inclusion
of H.R. 915, Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization
Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain actions to
protect archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan''), in
the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This bill grants the authority to the
President to impose emergency import restrictions under the Convention
on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) to prevent the import
into the United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that
have been illegally removed from the cultural institutions and
archaeological sites of Afghanistan.
Too often, public perception has held that the value of
archaeological research is based only on the recovery of beautiful
objects. Archaeological research, however, relies on detailed and
extensive analysis of all of a site's contents, from the remains of
building and house layouts to material goods to faunal and floral
remains to details of soil composition and chemistry. When a site is
looted, the disturbance of site context has far-reaching consequences
for the level and quality of information that can be recovered through
scientific methods. Looters destroy far more than they know when
digging indiscriminately.
I am an archaeologist specializing on the analysis of faunal
remains, the ubiquitous animal bones that are so commonly a part of
human living arrangements. The material that I work with is not
desirable to the collector, but it is invaluable to an archaeologist
interested in questions ranging across topics that include the origins
of domestication, economic exchanges between societies, the nature of
social status, and local environmental and subsistence conditions.
Faunal material is also easily disturbed and scattered, or tossed
aside, by looting.
In the specific case of Afghanistan, the world at large, and
Afghanistan in particular, is losing its cultural heritage, bit by bit,
on a daily basis. Afghanistan sits on a crossroads that have made it a
lively and dynamic location for trade in goods, ideas, beliefs, and
technology. The ancient Silk Road crossed Afghanistan bringing into
contact people and cultures from the Far East, the Mediterranean basin,
and South Asia. Early Buddhist and Persian cities and states
flourished, and their histories inform us on geopolitical currents in
the ancient world.
A country with a rich and varied history is rich indeed, and it is
my belief that bills such as H.R. 915 do exert a positive influence by
restricting demand for illegally looted artifacts, and thus also serve
to discourage supply of these items. Given the special relationship
that the United States has formed with the country of Afghanistan,
imposition of import restrictions on illegally excavated antiquities is
one way in which to help conserve a fascinating and important region's
cultural history.
Deborah Bekken
Adjunct Curator
[By permission of the Chairman:]
The World Archaeological Congress
Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia
August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) urges you to support the
inclusion of H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of
Civilization Act (A bill to authorize the President to take certain
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of
Afghanistan) in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill that is presently before
the House of Representatives.
The WAC strongly supports this initiative, which would provide
legal means to prevent the importation into the United States of
illegally removed Afghan antiquities and other cultural materials.
Significant artifacts and works of art are currently being looted from
archaeological sites in Afghanistan with a view to being sold
ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. With
this
legislation, the incentive to participate in this theft will be
significantly minimized.
The World Archaeological Congress is an international organization,
which represents professional archaeologists in tertiary institutions,
museums, government agencies, and the private sector from more than 90
countries. It seeks to promote interest in the past in all countries,
to encourage the development of regionally based histories and
international academic interaction, and has a particular interest in:
education about the past
archaeology and indigenous peoples
the ethics of archaeological enquiry
the protection of sites and objects of the past
the effect of archaeology on host communities
the ownership, conservation and exploitation of the
archaeological heritage
the application of new technologies in archaeology and in
archaeological communication
the place of archaeology in a post-colonial world.
In the past, the U.S. government has exercised thoughtful
responsibility for its own national heritage, knowing that it is
irreplaceable, and has acknowledged the protective value of appropriate
legislation.
The WAC believes that this proposed legislation is vital for the
protection of the heritage of Afghanistan--a heritage that has played
an important role in the world's historical and cultural development.
Archaeological treasures have inherent value to cultural identity, not
only to the Afghan people, but to the world community as well. In the
last two decades looting in Afghanistan has been devastating to that
country's cultural heritage. The current looting of archaeological
sites destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific
information that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation
of sites. When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
The United States has undertaken a special relationship with
Afghanistan, as they have previously done with Iraq. Concern for
preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration. It is crucial that the President be given this
authority to prevent the import into the United States of looted
cultural materials.
With the enactment of this legislation the United States will take
another crucial step towards fulfilling its obligations to the Afghan
people and our understanding of the world's and our own cultural
heritage will be significantly enriched.
Dr Claire Smith
President
Dr Larry J. Zimmerman
Vice President
Chicago, Illinois 60605
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
Like many other people in the world, I am extremely concerned about
the destruction of Afghanistan's cultural heritage. Since our country
took on the responsibility of trying to provide a better future for the
people of Afghanistan, we cannot ignore the issue of protecting
archaeological and ethnological materials. I urge you to support H.R.
915, the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act.
Our President needs the authority to impose emergency import
restrictions of such objects, so that cultural materials (modern,
historic, and ancient) from sovereign nations like Afghanistan are
protected. Americans like myself deeply value our own cultural
heritage, and we understand the similar feelings of the people of
Afghanistan.
As a professional archaeologist and anthropologist, I know that the
destruction of ancient sites and traditionally valued craft goods and
related objects is devastating to people from the affected communities
and to the scholarly community as a whole. The illegal removal of
archaeological and ethnological items is often done in conjunction with
the destruction of cultural sites that are equally meaningful to
people. We owe it to the world as a whole to help protect the rich
cultural heritage of Afghanistan. Our gesture proving to the world that
we care about Afghanistan's cultural heritage will improve goodwill in
this region, and beyond.
Anne P. Underhill, Ph.D.
Associate Curator and Professor, Asian Anthropology
Unidroit-L
Goleta, CA 93117
August 30, 2005
E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
United States House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Shaw:
I am writing regarding forthcoming hearings on H.R. 915,
particularly inclusion of ancient coins in the list of restricted
items.
I am founder and listowner of Unidroit-L, a discussion group
dedicated to study and discussion of cultural property law and the
impact of such laws on collectors. Next to the 1995 Unidroit
Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention and its implementation have been
our most active topic. Members of this list include archaeologists,
curators, educators, legal experts and researchers, as well as
collectors and dealers.
Unidroit-L has critically examined effects of cultural property law
on antiquities collecting, including specific conventions and
legislation. Early in this study, it became apparent that cultural
property laws have been drafted without consideration of methods by
which the antiquities market actually functions, or of practices
normally followed by collectors and dealers in buying and selling
antiquities. Certain provisions of these laws would in practice be
quite unrealistic and unreasonable, for example those requiring
documentation of provenance for artifacts of small value such as coins,
for which provenance records have never been kept.
In our discussions it soon became evident that divergences between
perception and reality severely hamper development of realistic,
effective cultural property laws. Misconceptions and stereotypes exist
on both sides. Archaeologists tend to think of collectors as wealthy
bankers, seeking rare and important antiquities to adorn their villas,
without regard for laws violated or damage done when archaeological
sites are plundered to satisfy their lust for the beautiful and rare.
Collectors tend to think of archaeologists as arrogant and unrealistic
academics, demanding total control of all excavations and everything
ever dug up, without regard for economic practicality or damage to
innocent, beneficial avocations such as collecting coins.
When real archaeologists and real collectors meet in circumstances
allowing rational discussion, they find that such preconceptions are
wrong. Real collectors are not bankers jealously hoarding ancient
treasures in their vaults, and real archaeologists tend to be quite
reasonable people once you get to know them. When preconceptions and
ideology are set aside, genuine progress toward preserving cultural
heritage can be made while preserving and encouraging responsible,
ethical collecting. Such free intellectual interchange does not often
happen, because ideology rather than practical reality is presently
driving developments.
It has become an article of faith among preservationists that the
antiquities market and antiquities collecting are the source of all
ills threatening preservation of cultural heritage. If private
collecting of antiquities could only be eliminated, so preservationists
believe, there would be no market for stolen, smuggled or illegally
exported artifacts, and according to this point of view, plundering of
archaeological and cultural heritage sites would cease.
This is a naive and unrealistic perspective. Anticollecting
ideology has isolated preservationists from the antiquities market for
so many years that they do not understand how it functions. Those in
the trade know that no government or international organization will
ever have the power to abolish the antiquities market. It will continue
in one form or another, whatever laws or conventions may be enacted.
Declaring the antiquities trade to be illegal would only ensure that
instead of being openly conducted by responsible dealers bound by codes
of ethics and laws, it would become a black market activity conducted
by criminals. In the 1920s a similarly mistaken policy, when sale of
alcoholic beverages was made illegal by the Volstead Act, did major
social damage in the United States. It is recognized today that these
negative consequences far outweighed any good that could possibly have
been achieved. That unwise repressive law did not even reduce
consumption of alcohol, which actually increased.
Nations whose cultural heritage is threatened by looting and
smuggling of antiquities and other cultural objects do not lack
repressive laws. Every such state has laws prohibiting clandestine
excavation or export of such items. The people of these nations do not
respect these laws, instead viewing them as measures designed to ensure
that corrupt officials can extort bribes, so proceeds from discoveries
will go to them rather than the finders. Repressive antiquities
legislation has failed everywhere it has been enacted, even in
democratic European states such as Italy. Imposing this ineffective
approach within the USA cannot accomplish anything positive, but would
instead bring with it the contempt for law that prevails in antiquities
source countries.
One nation has effectively solved the problem of managing the
desires of its people to discover antiquities and to profit from these
discoveries. The United Kingdom has set a standard for the world to
emulate in the Portable Antiquities Scheme. This well thought out
measure has gained strong cooperation from the British public, who
between April 2003 and March 2004 reported discovery of more than
47,000 artifacts. Every year reporting of finds improves, and where
Finds Liason Officers have been appointed, large increases in finds
reports result. Local volunteer archaeologists, regional
archaeologists, and detectorist clubs have joined in training those
interested in searching for antiquities, defining approved processes of
responsible discovery and reporting. In addition to ensuring that finds
will be reported, this cooperation has developed a valuable
``scouting'' system locating many new excavation opportunities.
Although the Portable Antiquities Scheme is not yet ten years old and
is still developing, it has already become far more effective in
controlling public behavior than repressive laws in any other nation.
It has conclusively proven that developing cooperation is a much better
approach than repression.
Observing how ineffective repression has always been in protecting
antiquities, even in days when no one collected them and those caught
disturbing tombs or monuments died instantly and unpleasantly, I have
come to understand that the only workable way to suppress illicit
antiquities trafficking is for preservationists, cultural authorities,
collectors and dealers to cooperate in establishing a regulated trade
in provenanced antiquities. There are some laws everyone obeys, whether
or not they realize it, among which are the laws of economics. If a
regulated trade in provenanced antiquities is established, economic
effects will devalue unprovenanced antiquities and illicit trade will
cease, just as abruptly as rumrunning and speakeasies disappeared when
a regulated legal trade in alcohol was established.
The technology and systems required to implement such a regulated
trade presently exist, and are well proven in other applications. The
only genuine obstacle to a cooperative licit trade is the negative,
confrontational attitude of preservationists who advocate abolishing
all collecting of antiquities. Cherishing illusions that legal
prohibition of collecting is possible and would eliminate the illicit
antiquities trade, they regard cooperation with collectors or the trade
as unethical. All discoveries must be retained by institutions and
cultural authorities, whether or not they have any prospect of ever
being displayed to the public or being needed for research. Such vast
numbers of antiquities have been amassed by official hoarding that
there is no room to store them properly, no staff to inventory them,
let alone organize them into collections or provide conservation. They
rot unconserved on warehouse shelves where no one will ever benefit
from their discovery. There have even been reports that archaeologists
have broken intact ceramics not wanted by their institutions, to
prevent them from falling into the hands of collectors.
The millions of surplus artifacts presently warehoused in
facilities without proper staff or climate control, sometimes vermin
infested, also lack proper security. For the most part these facilities
are not guarded, and are in constant danger of being broken into by
thieves and vandals. The loss of millions of unpublished artifacts when
the Beit She'an warehouse was set afire by vandals in March 2004 stands
out among many reports of such destructive incidents. Only three weeks
ago, the antiquities warehouse in Sidon was broken into, and thieves
vandalized the premises before smashing two sarcophagi and stealing the
head of one with a rare Byzantine inscription.
Still more unpleasant to relate, the huge numbers of antiquities
amassed in official hoards have proven an irresistible temptation to
all too many charged with their care and protection. Recently the
former director of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities department
for inspecting private collections received a life sentence for taking
bribes, forgery and profiteering by supplying smugglers with
certificates that genuine antiquities were fakes (which can legally be
exported). Many other reports of official complicity in illegal trading
and smuggling (even cases of outright insider theft) can be found in
the archive of Unidroit-L. The dirty secret of museums and cultural
institutions is that the incidence of custodial theft and other staff
misconduct is distressingly high. Many cases of this never come to
light, and others are only detected after many years have passed. It is
an open secret in the antiquities trade that most of those who staff
museums and cultural institutions in Third World countries are poorly
paid, poorly qualified and in far too many cases, inclined to steal
whatever they think they can get away with.
Finally, official hoarding of antiquities has simply created an
artificial scarcity of licit provenanced artifacts, which sustains and
makes possible the illicit antiquities market. There are plenty of
antiquities to fill every museum to overflowing, satisfy all needs of
science, and still release a large surplus of redundant unneeded
artifacts as provenanced, licit collectibles. The unreasonable,
uncooperative ideology of preservationists who deny provenanced
artifacts to collectors and influence others to do so, is the real root
cause of archaeological site looting and illicit antiquities smuggling.
The day official hoarding is abandoned and a regulated licit market is
established will be the day looting of archaeological sites and
smuggling of artifacts ends.
By any rational standard, the policy of confiscating finds and
hoarding antiquities in official and governmental custody has proven to
be a disastrous failure. Stored antiquities are not properly cared for,
often being destroyed by rot, corrosion or vermin before anyone even
examines them. They are not properly secured, becoming targets for
vandalism and theft. They are temptations which many charged with their
custody cannot resist, resulting in insider theft and other corrupt
behavior. The public in nations imposing such policies do not believe
that any of this maladministration is really for their benefit, so they
violate these repressive laws without any moral compunctions whenever
they think they can get away with it.
When the United States ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983,
hearings were held bringing out the evils and futility of repressive
laws in antiquities source countries. Ratification was enacted with
significant reservations. The CPIA became law only after a long,
difficult struggle in which all sides--museums, collectors,
archaeologists, dealers, and anthropologists--advanced legitimate but
conflicting positions. Congress did not attempt to choose sides but
instead established a consultative process, with clear statutory
guidelines, to determine when U.S. borders should be closed to cultural
objects from abroad. Debate was intense because the U.S. has always
favored free trade in allowing cultural objects to enter the United
States. U.S. courts have repeatedly determined that the government
should not deviate from free trade just because a cultural object
enters this country in violation of another nation's export laws. The
United States does not have any obligation to enforce export control
laws of other nations.
Preservationists have now begun an intiative to reverse the
principle that U.S. courts will not enforce foreign export control
laws. Such a reversal would have occurred had the United States
ratified the 1995 UNIDROIT convention, but unified and vigorous
opposition from the entire U.S. museum, collector, and dealer community
convinced the State Department to abandon that initiative. Instead, the
1970 UNESCO Convention is now being exploited in an attempt to achieve
that policy reversal as an administrative matter under authority of the
CPIA, with a goal of administratively changing U.S. law to enforce
foreign export control laws, clearly exceeding the originally intended
scope of the CPIA. H.R. 915 is one part of this preservationist
initiative.
In considering measures such as H.R. 915, one must realize that
although preservationists may have good intentions and laudable moral
values, the measures they propose are not thereby guaranteed to be wise
or well considered. Without going into the merits of this bill as a
whole, I will present reasons why inclusion of ancient coins in the
list of restricted objects would be inappropriate, unwise, and might
well exceed the authority given to the President by section 304 of the
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2603). I
shall further discuss the difficulties that would confront U.S. Customs
in attempting to enforce such a restriction, and explain why the only
conceivable approach for enforcing such a restriction would place an
impossible and unjust burden on importers of ancient coins.
The CPIA was intended to deal with highly publicized instances of
pillage that led to enactment of the 1970 UNESCO Convention--looting of
tombs and monuments, and destruction and dismantling of archaeological
sites into movable objects. The Act was designed to provide a
particular remedy under U.S. import laws to bar entry of important
cultural properties which were actively being looted abroad. Congress
clearly did not contemplate any wholesale ban on foreign cultural goods
coming into the United States.
The CPIA allows the United States to entertain requests from
foreign nations to bar import of significant specific cultural objects
which are currently being pillaged. For such a request to be found
justified, there must be specific evidence of pillage of the embargoed
goods. Section 2602(a)(2)(A) states that the United States can apply
import restrictions ``to archeological or ethnological material . . .
the pillage of which is creating jeopardy to the cultural patrimony''
of the requesting state. The Senate report accompanying the CPIA
confirmed that the new law would authorize the President ``to apply
specific import or other controls (upon the request of a State Party)
to archaeological or ethnological materials specifically identified as
comprising part of a state's cultural patrimony that is in danger of
being pillaged.''
A second essential feature of the CPIA is that the United States
retains discretion to make its own decision under its laws, without
accepting a foreign nation's characterization of the articles in
question. Clearly, the U.S. government is not justified in imposing
import restrictions on the assertion that import of particular objects
would violate another nation's export control laws.
There are no grounds for believing that ancient Afghani coins are
being pillaged today, or have ever been pillaged, on a scale or in a
manner that jeopardizes the cultural patrimony of Afghanistan. With
rare exceptions, coins really are not objects of importance to any
nation's cultural patrimony. Italy certainly has as great a cultural
patrimony as any nation. During their long history, the peoples of
ancient Italy struck coins of unrivalled quality and variety. Italy was
among the first nations to institute legal measures to protect its
cultural heritage. On June 26, 2005 the Italian government recognized
that nearly all ancient coins are of such minor cultural importance
that Italy will no longer require that they be declared to authorities
when found, or control their export. The few exceptions to this law are
coins and medals of great rarity or exceptional individual cultural
significance.
There is no evidence that anyone disturbs archaeological or
cultural sites in Afghanistan with a view toward finding ancient coins.
Tombs, temples and other monuments are very unrewarding places to
prospect for ancient coins in most parts of the world, as are cities
and other built up areas. Coins are sometimes found during excavations
of such sites, but normally these finds are individual coins
inadvertently lost or discarded, rather than intentionally concealed
hoards. With rare exceptions, hoards were concealed in out of the way
places such as in fields or in the woods. This can be clearly seen in
the 2002 UK report of treasure finds, where only three per cent of
finds were discovered in the course of archaeological excavations while
ninety five per cent were discovered by detectorists.
Apart from the magnitude of this statistical difference, there is
an important quality difference between coins found in excavations and
hoards discovered by detectorists. Individually buried coins are rarely
found in collectible condition. They may be useful for dating strata
under favorable conditions where upward migration can be ruled out, but
after exposure to centuries or millennia of corrosion on all surfaces,
they are usually worth little or nothing to collectors.
Coins discovered by detectorists were mostly buried in large
groups, and are often recovered in intact pots or other containers
which protected them against corrosion. Even in cases where the
container has perished, it is common to find coins fused together in a
lump of corrosion products. When the corrosion products are removed by
conservators, large numbers of coins from the interior of the lump are
often found to be in relatively pristine condition, retaining a high
value to collectors. These are the treasures, sometimes containing tens
of thousands of individual coins, that motivate detectorists to
prospect for coins.
Not only are there no valid grounds for classifying coins as
significant specific cultural objects whose pillage jeopardizes the
cultural patrimony of Afghanistan, there is no reasonable way to
distinguish coins originating in Afghanistan from those originating
elsewhere. In ancient times there was no Afghanistan, which was not
unified into a single political entity until 1747. During most of
antiquity, coins were issued in that part of South Central Asia by
authorities whose realms extended far beyond the borders of present day
Afghanistan. Most types of coins struck in what is now Afghanistan
circulated over large parts of the ancient world, and likewise coins
from distant lands circulated widely in these territories that later
became modern Afghanistan.
I will now briefly summarize the pre-Islamic numismatic history of
Afghanistan.
Before Alexander the Great conquered Persia, Afghanistan comprised
parts of several Persian satrapies (provinces), Bactria and Sogdiana
being the most important. The Persian Empire issued coinage only in
Asia Minor, for use by its Greek subjects and for paying Greek
mercenaries.
Alexander conquered Afghanistan between 330 and 327 b.c., founding
Hellenic colonies populated by Greek and Macedonian veterans and their
followers. During his reign and that of Philip III, some interesting
coins were struck in Bactria, although these were not Macedonian
imperial issues. After 305 b.c. Seleukos, the satrap of Babylon,
extended his rule to the eastern provinces of the Alexandrine Empire,
establishing mints at Bactra and An Khanoum. His control of much of
this area was tenuous. In 303 b.c. he ceded Pakistan, the Kabul Valley
and southeastern Afghanistan to Chandragupta Maurya, the Indian ruler
who introduced Buddhism into Afghanistan. While these areas were under
Mauryan domination, Indian punchmarked coins were used. The Eastern
Hellenic realm comprised Bactria (northern Afghanistan and part of
Turkmenistan) and Sogdiana (Uzbekistan), whose most important city was
Samarkand. Greek coins with royal Seleukid types were issued until in
256 b.c., the Seleukid realm lost its eastern provinces. Parthia (in
Iran, west of Afghanistan) became an independent kingdom, gradually
absorbing much of the old Persian Empire, while Bactria and Sogdiana
became an Indo-Greek kingdom under Diodotos, who issued his own coinage
modeled on Seleukid types. The Seleukid ruler Antiochos III made a
last, unsuccessful effort to regain these eastern provinces in 206 b.c.
Thereafter the Indo-Greeks expanded into Pakistan and India, though
pressed by Scythians and other nomads from the north. Sogdiana was soon
lost, but Demetrios I regained the Kabul valley around 180 b.c. and
then further expanded Indo-Greek power into the northern Indus valley.
Bilingual issues with Greek obverse inscriptions and Indian (Karoshthi)
reverse inscriptions were struck for Indo-Greek subjects who spoke
Indic languages.
Around 130 b.c. the Yueh-Chih, a Central Asian nomad tribe, began a
migration that drove their Scythian neighbors into Bactria. The
Scythians conquered most of that province, Indo-Greeks retaining only
its eastern part where silver mines supported what remained of their
power. After the fall of Bactria, Indo-Greek Afghanistan comprised
Badakshan, Tocharestan and the Kabul Valley. The kingdom shifted
eastward into the northern Indus valley and Kashmir, where its capital
became Pushkalavati in Gandhara (present day Pakistan). The Scythian
invasion continued from Bactria down the western edge of the central
Afghan massif, then eastward through the southern province of Arachosia
and beyond to the Indus. There Indo-Scythian rulers battled the Indo-
Greeks for a century, issuing coins with bilingual Greek/Indic legends.
Scythians who settled in western Afghanistan meanwhile became tributary
to the Parthian kingdom.
About 25 b.c. the Yueh-Chih expanded from Sogdiana into Bactria,
taking over Indo-Greek holdings in northern Afghanistan, after which
the Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian kingdoms were cut off from their
silver supply. As the Yueh-Chih took control of Bactria, Scythians in
western Afghanistan (now known as Indo-Parthians) threw off Parthian
dominion and marched eastward into the realm of the Indo-Scythians,
issuing coinage that initially emulated Indo-Scythian types. By the
beginning of the Christian era the remnants of the Indo-Greek and Indo-
Scythian kingdoms had fallen to the Indo-Parthians and to the Yueh-
Chih, who later became known as the Kushans. The Indo-Parthians ruled
the Hellenized parts of North India and Pakistan until the Kushans also
conquered these areas, after which the Indo-Parthians retreated into
southern Afghanistan, controlling Sakastan and Turan before becoming
tributary to Persia in 230 a.d.
At its height the Kushan Empire comprised northern Afghanistan,
most of Pakistan and much of northern India. Its coinage began as a
continuation of Indo-Scythian types, evolving into a distinct Indic
style with Bactrian legends. Persia eventually proved too strong for
the Kushans, gradually taking over the western part of their realm as
the vassal kingdom of Kushanshahr, where hybrid Kushano-Sasanian coin
types were issued. About 350 a.d. the dynast Kidara seized power in
Peshawar, from which he was able to repel the Sasanians and take over
remnants of the Kushan Empire, including parts of Afghanistan. This new
kingdom soon split into four Kidarite successor regimes, of which the
one centered in Peshawar endured until 460 a.d.
When Kidara revolted, the Hepthalites or White Hun subjects of
Persia seized power in Bactria. The Persians had the worst of the
struggle and their king Peroz was captured. The Hepthalites then
conquered most of Afghanistan and the Kidarite dominion, issuing
coinage emulating Sasanian prototypes. About 560 a.d. the Sasanians
under Khusru I had their revenge. In alliance with the Turks, they
reconquered most of Afghanistan but could not hold these gains, Bactria
and eastern Afghanistan being absorbed by the Turkish khanate. After
the khanate split into independent kingdoms around 600 a.d., the
Persians made a temporary recovery, but the Sasanian regime
disintegrated after a disastrous war with the Byzantine Empire, falling
to the rising power of Islam in 651 a.d. By 700 a.d. most of
Afghanistan had been absorbed into the Caliphate, although the Kabul
Valley and southeastern Afghanistan still remained under Turko-
Hepthalite control.
After Alexander's conquest, pre-Islamic Afghanistan was always
divided between contending regimes, whose borders in most cases
extended well beyond the present boundaries of Afghanistan. Our
knowledge of the mints of these authorities is still very incomplete.
Coins from all parts of these realms circulated within Afghanistan,
among coins from other areas. An indicator of this diversity is the
Qunduz hoard, catalogued by Curiel and Fussman in 1965. It includes an
Alexandrine imperial coin, Seleukid types issued long after Indo-Greek
independence, and large numbers of Indo-Greek coins struck in areas
that later became part of Pakistan.
Pre-Islamic coin types known to have circulated within Afghanistan,
which might (however improbably in the case of any individual coin)
have been discovered in Afghanistan, include issues of the Alexandrine
Macedonian Empire, the Seleukid Kingdom, various Indo-Greek kingdoms,
Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian kingdoms, Sogdiana and various Central
Asian polities, the Parthian Kingdom, Sasanian Persia, Kushanshahr,
Indian rulers and China.
There is nothing about any individual coin in a typical shipment
defining its origin, which is legally defined as the place of its
discovery. That cannot be determined by examination. Many ancient coins
have been in collections for long periods. The original place of
discovery is very rarely recorded, usually only when a coin was part of
a numismatically significant hoard.
Moreover, a coin may not have been discovered at all. There are
undoubtedly a great many ancient coins that have never been buried,
always having been held in treasures before ultimately finding their
way into collections. Monetary use of ancient coins did not cease in
ancient times. After World War I, for example, Turkey paid some of its
reparations with Byzantine gold solidi that had been held for many
centuries in the Ottoman imperial treasury. Roman coins circulated in
some parts of Europe into the eighteenth century. No one can say what
ancient coins have passed from merchant to merchant over the centuries
in the souks and bazaars of Central Asia and India.
The only conceivable way to ensure that no coins originating in
Afghanistan are allowed to enter the U.S. would be to require the
importer to prove the provenance of each imported example of a very
wide range of ancient coin types. Because such provenance information
has never been recorded for nearly all ancient coins, in practice very
few shipments could be allowed. Placing such an extreme burden of proof
on an importer transcends all reason. Preservationists who seek to
outlaw collecting might view the chaos and inequities that would ensue
as a desirable result, but it would go far beyond anything Congress
intended to authorize in passing the CPIA.
I urge the Committee to take a conservative approach in considering
inclusion of coins in the restrictions authorized by H. R. 915. There
is no evidence that inclusion of coins can accomplish anything good.
There is considerable reason to think that arguments for including
objects such as coins are based on false premises, following a
repressive policy that has uniformly failed wherever it has been
applied. There are strong grounds for concluding that inclusion of
coins would exceed the authority given to the President by the CPIA.
Finally, there is no reasonable way to include coins in these
restrictions without imposing an impossible requirement to prove
provenance, excluding very large numbers of coins which (if their
provenance could somehow accurately be determined) actually originated
outside the present day borders of Afghanistan.
David E. Welsh
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
24 August 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural,
religious and scientific information that is derived through the
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed
we are all the poorer for it.
The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given
equal consideration.
Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
As Professor of Religious Studies at a large state university
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), I teach students about
the importance of the world's cultural heritage, which belongs to all
of us. Here is a case where the U.S. can help preserve this heritage. I
hope you will support this legislation.
Sincerely,
Jodi Magness, Ph.D.
Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early
Judaism
Department of Religious Studies
Statement of American Iron & Steel Institute, Cold Finished Steel Bar
Institute, Committee on Pipe & Tube Imports, Metals Service Center
Institute, Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Steel
Manufacturers Association, United Steelworkers, and Wire Rod Producers'
Coalition
The above listed trade groups and union (hereinafter referred to as
the industry), on behalf of their members in the United States,
submitted comments to the Department of Commerce on or about May 10,
2005 on the interim final rule for the Steel Import Monitoring and
Analysis system (SIMA) issued by the Department on March 11, 2005 as
70FR 12,133 (See attached). These organizations represent companies
engaged in the overwhelming majority of steel production and
distribution in the U.S., as well as the trade union representing the
majority of production workers.
In our comments to Commerce, the industry discussed various
deficiencies and limitations of the SIMA interim final rule, and made
recommendations which we asked Commerce to consider. The final rule has
not been released by Commerce.
While the Commerce interim final rule has significant strengths,
H.R. 1068 effectively addresses the deficiencies and limitations of
that rule.
The steel industry strongly supports the passage of H.R. 1068. We
also appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important bill, and
your consideration of the broad need for a comprehensive and permanent
steel import licensing and monitoring program.
American Wire Producers Association
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
September 2, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman,
On behalf of the member companies of the American Wire Producers
Association (AWPA), we want to express our support for the inclusion of
HR 1068 in the miscellaneous trade bill. The AWPA is a national trade
association representing over 85% of the producers of carbon, alloy,
and stainless steel wire in the United States. Member companies employ
more than 76,000 workers at over 255 plants in 34 states, and they have
combined annual sales in excess of $18 billion.
We offer the following reasons why the proposed legislation to
maintain the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) program and to
expand its coverage to steel wire products meets the Chairman's four
criteria for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill:
Revenue Gains
This bill has no impact on the revenue of the U.S. Government.
Retroactive Effect
HR 1068 has no retroactive effect; it merely makes a current
federal program permanent and expands it to include an important
component of the U.S. steel industry.
Controversial
The domestic steel trade associations and U.S. steel producers
consider wire products to be an integral part of the American steel
industry. The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the Steel
Manufacturers Association (SMA), the Specialty Steel Industry of North
America (SSINA), United States Steel Corporation, IPSCO Enterprises,
and the United Steelworkers of America--among others--have urged that
wire products be covered by the SIMA program. Additionally, during the
OECD steel subsidy negotiations, the United States Government
recognized wire products as part of the steel sector by pressing for
coverage and/or monitoring of these products.
Administrative Burden
AWPA has requested that the SIMA monitoring program include the
following categories of steel wire products, which are also covered by
HR 1068:
1. Steel wire strand, rope, and cable (HTS 7312); Barbed wire (HTS
7313);
2. Steel wire cloth, grill, netting and fencing (HTS 7314);
3. Steel wire nails and staples (HTS 7317); and
4. Steel wire garment hangers (HTS 7326.20.0020).
The inclusion of these few additional but vital products in the
SIMA program would require no modifications to the licensing or
reporting forms or to the procedures or data collection established
with respect to the current SIMA program. It would impose little or no
additional burden on the Commerce Department's administration of the
program.
We also would like to offer the following additional reasons why HR
1068 should be included in the miscellaneous trade bill.
Burden on Importers
Coverage of steel wire products will not be burdensome because the
trading companies and importers which handle wire products also deal
with steel products covered by SIMA. Thus, the companies are already
familiar with the requirements and procedures.
International Consistency
Coverage of steel wire products will make the SIMA program
consistent with the Canadian ``steel import surveillance programme''
which covers wire products, including steel wire rope, strand, cable,
barbed wire, nails, and staples.
Early Warning
An important purpose of the SIMA program is to provide invaluable
``early warning'' of any changes in import trends, volumes and sources.
American manufacturers of wire products would be able to react more
quickly and meaningfully to such changes, and the information from the
SIMA program would be extremely beneficial to U.S. wire and wire
products companies which are competing in a global steel market.
For these reasons, we respectfully encourage you and the other
members of the Subcommittee to include HR 1068 in the final
miscellaneous trade bill.
Robert Moffitt
President
Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable
Manufacturers
Washington, DC 20037
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354
Dear Chairman Shaw:
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Committee of Domestic
Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (Committee) in
support of H.R. 1068, a bill to maintain and expand the steel import
licensing and monitoring program. The Committee is composed of U.S.
manufacturers which together account for the vast majority of steel
wire rope production in the United States.
Pursuant to Section 1(b)(2) of H.R. 1068, the steel import
licensing and monitoring program would be expanded to include steel
articles classified in heading 7312 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) response to notice published at 70 Fed.
Reg. 12133 (March 11, 2005). This heading includes steel wire rope
(subheadings 7312.10.60 and 7312.10.90, HTSUS).
Steel articles classified under heading 7312, HTSUS, are not
currently included in the steel import monitoring and analysis (SIMA)
system implemented by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2004. The
reason for this exclusion is that products classified under this
heading of the HTSUS did not receive import relief as a result of the
section 201 investigation of Certain Steel Products. Despite the
demonstrable loss of market share to imports and the dramatic serious
injury being suffered, the industry's plight was ignored, and the
product was included in an arbitrary ``product grouping'' that included
other unrelated products, most notably tire cord, that are not
manufactured by the U.S. steel wire rope industry. This arbitrary
product grouping resulted in aggregated data that masked the serious
injury from which this industry is suffering. As a result, steel wire
rope suffered the negative determination that the U.S. International
Trade Commission (ITC) issued as to the arbitrary product grouping as a
whole.
The U.S. steel wire rope industry strongly believes that this
result was unfair and unjust. The ITC did not investigate and consider
this industry's condition, and the outcome was contrary to the very
reason that a comprehensive section 201 investigation was requested
(specifically including steel wire rope) and conducted in the first
place. Indeed, in reviewing the ITC's determinations, two facts remain
inescapable:
None of the product groupings that received an
affirmative determination from the ITC in the section 201 investigation
suffers from as high an import penetration rate as does the U.S. steel
wire rope industry.
During the period examined by the ITC, the U.S. steel
wire rope industry lost more market share to imports than eight of the
product groupings that received affirmative determinations.
Since the ITC's ``section 201'' investigation, the condition of
this industry continued to deteriorate as a result of increasing import
penetration of the U.S. steel wire rope market. Indeed, in 2004, the
level of steel wire rope imports (as measured in tonnage) was the by
far the highest annual total on record (115,063 net tons, which was
which was 9 percent higher than the second highest annual total).
Domestic shipments of steel wire rope by U.S. manufacturers in 2004
were the third lowest annual level on record: indeed, the two lowest
annual levels were recorded in 2002 and 2003, which means that the
three worst years for U.S. steel wire rope manufacturers as measured by
the volume of domestic shipments transpired during the three years
after the ``section 201'' investigation was completed.
As a result of the quantifiable trends outlined above, imports
captured 55 percent of the U.S. steel wire rope market in 2004, which
was the highest level on record. Through the first six months of this
year, the import share of the U.S. market has risen to 55.7 percent.
The Committee is aware that the SIMA system created in connection
with the implementation of safeguard measures covered only those
imports on which restraints had been imposed. Of course, that
distinction is now history, as the safeguard measures were terminated
by President Bush in December 2003. In any case, the Committee
respectfully submits that as a matter of national policy, if not of
fundamental justice, it is critical that the system be extended to
cover imports of steel wire rope.\1\ The U.S. steel wire rope industry
is suffering profound injury by reason of a relentless surge in imports
of the product over the past several years. Having failed to provide
import relief for this critical U.S. industry because of the arbitrary
``grouping'' of the ITC's section 201 investigation, extension of the
SIMA system to imports of steel wire rope would at least assist the
industry to prepare its competitive stance on a real-time basis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On this point, the Committee notes that the interim final rule
regarding the SIMA system published by the Department of Commerce in
March 2005 encompassed certain so-called ``downstream'' products
classified in chapter 73 of the HTSUS; therefore the Committee's
support for expansion of the licensing system to cover imports of steel
wire rope, as envisioned by H.R. 1068, would not undercut any existing
``bright lines'' regarding product coverage.
\2\ The Committee notes that there are no statutory or regulatory
provisions that would bar extension of the SIMA system to steel wire
rope. Indeed, as an ``automatic'' licensing system, the SIMA system--
imposing as it does minimal burden on applicants, and having no
``import restricting effects''--is specifically envisioned by Article 2
of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures completed under the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of the SIMA system to imports of steel wire rope is, of
course, not a cure-all for the pernicious effects that imports have
upon this critical U.S. manufacturing industry. Its restorative impact
will not be immediate, or even apparent to most. However, it is a tool
that this Government can provide this industry as it fights to stay
alive. It would be a demonstration that this Government is concerned
about the fate of its critical manufacturing industries.
Indeed, if the U.S. industry had this tool in the earlier time
periods--for example, during the 1996-1998 span when imports increased
by over 25,000 tons and the import penetration rate jumped from
approximately 40 percent to nearly 50 percent as a result of the
``Asian flu''--it would have been much better positioned to react
expeditiously to the radical change in market conditions. Application
of the SIMA system to steel wire rope imports would not have solved all
the problems which the industry endured as a result of those events.
However, with real-time information such as that provided by an import
licensing system, the industry might have been able to stave off the
most debilitating effects of the market tumult. This type of real-time
information is absolutely essential if the U.S. steel wire rope
industry is to meet the challenges of future import surges, whether or
not they are connected to exchange rate manipulation and the predatory
practices with which this industry has been repeatedly confronted in
the past. Foreign suppliers will be put on notice that the U.S. steel
wire rope industry will react in the marketplace, and in the
Government.
For these reasons, we urge the Congress to pass, and for the
President to sign into law, H.R. 1068 as a provision within the so-
called ``miscellaneous tariff bill,'' to include imports of steel wire
rope as a product subject to an extended SIMA system.
Jeffrey S. Levin
Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard
Harris Ellsworth & Levin
International Trade Group
Independent Steelworkers Union
Weirton, West Virginia 26062
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Independent Steelworkers Union (``ISU'') represents over 2,000
steelworkers at the Weirton facility of Mittal Steel USA, in Weirton,
West Virginia. ISU is grateful for the chance to submit comments on
bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade
package. In particular, ISU is interested in H.R. 1068, ``A bill to
maintain and expand the steel import licensing and monitoring
program,'' H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act
of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930
relating to determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
ISU supports the inclusion of H.R. 1068 in the miscellaneous trade
bill and urges Congress to pass it into law. H.R. 1068 is an important
bill and one that should not attract significant controversy. H.R. 1068
simply expands and makes permanent the steel import monitoring program
that was established as part of the president's steel safeguard action
in 2002. This successful program has enabled U.S. producers and
policymakers to stay current on shifts in trade flows in the steel
sector and, when necessary, to take appropriate action. Making the
program permanent will help prevent future import surges like those in
the late 1990s, which resulted in thousands of lost steelworker jobs.
Expanding the program as proposed in H.R. 1068 would provide for
complete coverage of all steel mill products, allowing for a more
comprehensive analysis of steel imports. H.R. 1068, which modifies and
expands a successful, existing program, is representative of the sort
of bill that logically ought to be included in the miscellaneous trade
package. ISU supports its inclusion and enactment.
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are bills that should not be
included in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills, if passed,
would significantly weaken U.S. trade remedy laws and are thus likely
to attract a great deal of opposition. The U.S. needs strong, effective
trade remedy laws to ensure a level playing field for U.S.
manufacturers and workers. Given a fair market, the U.S. steel industry
can compete with any foreign rivals. However, ISU is all too familiar
with the effect of surges of steel imports at dumped and subsidized
prices. That is why the trade laws must remain in place, to prevent and
offset unfair trade and to provide a remedy for injury caused by it.
The miscellaneous trade bill should not be used to chip away at these
critical laws. That is why H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 must be excluded
from the package.
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act
of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes funds to
certain domestic parties that have been injured by dumped and
subsidized imports for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and
people. The source of the funds for CDSOA is antidumping and
countervailing duties, which are collected when dumping or
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. Where dumping
or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no funds to
distribute. That means the AD/CVD orders are working as intended. CDSOA
does not change the methodology used by Commerce to calculate dumping
margins or subsidy rates and it has no effect on the amount of duty
that must be paid. The program simply distributes funds to injured
parties, pursuant to generally applicable criteria, when unfair trade
practices do not cease. There is broad bi-partisan support among
Members of Congress and the public for CDSOA, and any legislation to
repeal the law would attract substantial controversy and strong
opposition. In ISU's view, H.R. 1121 is not a bill that should be
included in the miscellaneous trade package.
H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the
Tariff Act of 1930. This is hardly a technical amendment, however. If
enacted, H.R. 2473 would severely limit Commerce's ability to
effectively enforce the antidumping law. In effect, H.R. 2473 would
make it nearly impossible in most cases for Commerce to calculate the
dumping margin for non-investigated exporters, known as the ``all-
others'' rate. The ``all-others'' rate is a weighted average of dumping
margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. Under
current law, dumping margins that are based entirely on ``facts
available'' data are not included in the average. ``Facts available''
refers to data used by Commerce to calculate a dumping margin when a
respondent company does not supply all the actual company-specific that
is needed. Margins that are based only partially on facts available are
used in the calculation of the ``all-others'' rate. In practice, this
is necessary because many of the dumping margins Commerce calculates
are based on at least some ``facts available'' data.
H.R. 2473 would prohibit Commerce from using any dumping margins in
the ``all-others'' rate calculation that are based on any amount of
``facts available'' data. In most cases, this would effectively leave
Commerce with no margins to use in calculating an ``all-others'' rate.
Consequently, H.R. 2473 would create serious administrative
difficulties for the Department, necessarily weakening the antidumping
law. For these reasons, H.R. 2473 will almost certainly attract
significant controversy and would, for practical purposes, not be
administrable by Commerce.
ISU also finds it disturbing that the apparent purpose of H.R. 1121
and H.R. 2473 is to implement World Trade Organization (``WTO'') panel
and Appellate Body decisions that have gone against the U.S. That
purpose is inconsistent with the purpose of the miscellaneous trade
bill, which has historically been non-controversial legislation.
Furthermore, Congress and the Administration have repeatedly criticized
the overreaching of WTO panels and the Appellate Body, in these
disputes in particular, and have consistently maintained that, in the
decisions on CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, new obligations were
created that the U.S. never agreed to. These new rules are nowhere to
be found in the text of any WTO Agreement. Congress has also previously
called for the Administration to resolve these disputes through
negotiations at the WTO. Those negotiations are in progress as part of
the Doha Round and the Administration should be allowed to work within
that process to see whether, through negotiation, the problems created
by panel and Appellate Body overreaching can be corrected.
Consequently, it would not be appropriate to include H.R. 1121 and H.R.
2473 in the miscellaneous trade package.
ISU appreciates the Subcommittee accepting these comments and
taking them into consideration during its deliberations.
Mark Glyptis
President
Trinity Industries, Inc.
Dallas, Texas 75207
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
On behalf of Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity), and pursuant to
Advisory TR-3 (July 25, 2005), we hereby submit these comments
regarding H.R. 1068, one of the bills identified in that advisory.
Trinity supports this bill's proposals to (1) establish a permanent
steel import licensing and monitoring system, (2) expand the coverage
of the system to include all iron and steel, including heading 7307 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and (3)
release import and licensing data to the public at the tenth digit
level of the HTSUS. For the reasons discussed herein, Trinity urges the
Subcommittee on Trade to include H.R. 1068 in a miscellaneous trade
package.
I. Trinity is a Member of the Steel Industry for which the President
Created the Steel Import Licensing and Monitoring System
Trinity, through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary,
Trinity Fittings Group, Inc., is a U.S. manufacturer of carbon and
alloy steel butt-weld pipe fittings (BWPF). Trinity competes in the
U.S. market with imported BWPF, which are classified in tariff items
7307.93.3000, 7307.93.6000, 7307.93.9030, and 7307.93.9060 of the
HTSUS.
Trinity and other members of the domestic BWPF industry were active
participants in the U.S. International Trade Commission's (ITC) 2001
investigation under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2252 regarding certain steel
products.\1\ In that investigation, Trinity argued, and the ITC
ultimately determined, that carbon and alloy steel ``fittings,'' a
product category that included BWPF classified in 7307.93.3000,
7307.93.6000, 7307.93.9030, and 7307.93.9060, HTSUS, were ``being
imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a
substantial cause of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to
the domestic industry producing articles like or directly competitive
with the imported articles--.'' \2\ On March 5, 2002, pursuant to this
determination, President Bush implemented safeguard measures with
respect to imports of steel products including BWPF.\3\
In connection with these safeguard measures, the President
instructed the Department of Commerce and the Department of the
Treasury to establish a system of import licensing and monitoring
regarding the steel products covered by the safeguard measures.\4\ This
is the system referenced in Section 1 of H.R. 1068. Regulations
implementing that system (SIMA-I) were published on December 31,
2002.\5\ Effective December 5, 2003, the President terminated the
safeguard measures.\6\ However, in taking this action, the President
specified that SIMA-I was to remain in effect--without any changes to
its product coverage--``until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such
time as the Secretary of Commerce establishes a replacement program.''
\7\
While Trinity viewed the President's termination of the safeguard
measures as premature, it was encouraged by President's decision to
continue the SIMA-I system. Particularly encouraging was the
President's explanation that his intention in retaining SIMA-I was to
``keep the positive momentum going--so that my Administration can
quickly respond to future import surges that could unfairly damage the
industry.'' \8\
II. The Department of Commerce Has Announced its Intention to Terminate
the Benefits of the SIMA System for Trinity and Other Domestic
Producers
On March 11, 2005, after H.R. 1068 was introduced, the Department
published an interim final rule that announced several important
revisions to the SIMA-I system.\9\ The most significant of these
changes were: (1) to implement the system for an additional four years
beyond its current expiration date; (2) to expand the coverage of the
system ``to include all basic steel mill products''; (3) to release
more detailed statistics based on licensing data; and (4) to terminate
licensing for, and thus eliminate the collection of import data for,
``certain downstream steel products now covered, specifically, carbon
and alloy flanges and pipe fittings.'' \10\ We will refer to this
modified system as ``SIMA-II.''
The erim Final Ruleas Trinity's first notice that the continuation
of the import licensing and monitoring system would eliminate the
product grouping that is of direct interest to Trinity. The SIMA-I
system had permitted Trinity to monitor trends in imports of carbon
steel flanges and fittings well in advance of the statistics released
by the Bureau of the Census. Consequently, Trinity argued vehemently in
comments to the Department that it should specify in its final rule
(scheduled to be issued by September 30, 2005) that carbon steel
flanges and fittings will be maintained in the SIMA-II system. However,
because it is not at all certain that the Department will reverse its
erim Final Rulend return Trinity's products to the steel monitoring
system, Trinity is submitting these comments in support of H.R. 1068.
III. H.R. 1068 Would Restore to Trinity the Benefits that the
Department of Commerce Appears Poised to Eliminate
The Department of Commerce has announced its intention to exclude
from SIMA-II the steel products that Trinity manufactures because they
are ``downstream products.'' On the other hand, President Bush made no
such distinction when he provided safeguard measures, including the
SIMA-I system, to aid U.S. steel manufacturers, including producers of
carbon steel fittings and flanges. Particularly as the Department of
Commerce has announced its plans to extend the operation of the steel
import licensing and monitoring system, as well as to depart from and
expand the original scope of the monitoring system, Trinity submits
that it is appropriate to further modify the system as set out in H.R.
1068. The expanded system proposed by this legislation would encompass
the U.S. steel industry--an industry which the President recognized
includes both ``upstream'' and ``downstream'' products. U.S. steel
producers, including those like Trinity that manufacture the type of
steel products classified in heading 7307, HTSUS, continue to face
intense competition from imports, and would benefit from the detailed,
advance information on imports provided through the system as modified
by H.R. 1068.
V. Conclusion
Certain members of the U.S. steel industry, including, until
recently, Trinity, have received valuable information through the
Department of Commerce's steel import licensing and monitoring system.
The President originally implemented this system in recognition of
certain producers' vulnerability to future surges in import volumes.
But the Department of Commerce has expanded the system to include many
steel products that were not covered by the original relief measures,
and at the same time decided to exclude from the benefits of the system
steel products that it designated as ``downstream products.'' To ensure
that Trinity and other similarly situated domestic producers are not
deprived of this valuable source of advance import data, Trinity offers
its support for the inclusion of H.R. 1068 in a miscellaneous trade
package.
Cheryl Ellsworth
John B. Totaro, Jr.
Counsel to Trinity Industries, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Steel (Investigation No. TA-201-73), USITC Pub. 3479
(December 2001) (Steel), Vol. III at B-64 (identifying the President of
Trinity Fitting Group, Inc. as a witness at the ITC's October 1, 2001
hearing on injury) and B-103 (identifying the President of Trinity
Fitting Group, Inc. as a witness at the ITC's November 8, 2001 hearing
on remedy). See also Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic
Industry (Investigation No. TA-204-9), USITC Pub. 3632 (September 2003)
at B-6 (identifying the President of Trinity Fitting Group, Inc. as a
witness at the ITC's July 17, 2003 hearing regarding developments in
the 10 industries producing steel products corresponding to those
subject to the safeguard measures since the imposition of import
relief).
\2\ Steel at 1, n.1, 14, 26.
\3\ Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002; To Facilitate Positive
Adjustment to Competition From Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67
Fed. Reg. 10553 (March 7, 2002).
\4\ Memorandum of March 5, 2002; Action Under Section 203 of the
Trade Act of 1974 Concerning Certain Steel Products, 67 Fed. Reg.
10593, 10596 (March 7, 2002).
\5\ Steel Import Licensing and Surge Monitoring, 67 Fed. Reg. 79845
(December 31, 2002). These regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 360), and thus
the SIMA-I system, became effective as of February 1, 2003. The
regulations specified that the system was to include ``products from
excluded countries and those products subject to product-specific
exclusions.'' Id. at 79848.
\6\ Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003; To Provide for the
Termination of Action Taken With Regard to Imports of Certain Steel
Products, 68 Fed. Reg. 68483 (December 8, 2003).
\7\ Id. at 68484. The Department subsequently confirmed that
``[t]he duration of the licensing program is not affected by the early
termination of'' the safeguard measures. Notice of Continuation of
Steel Import Licensing and Surge Monitoring program, 68 Fed. Reg. 68594
(December 9, 2003).
\8\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-5.html
(last accessed March 18, 2005).
\9\ Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 Fed. Reg. 12133
(March 11, 2005) (Interim Final Rule).
\10\ Interim Final Rule at 12133-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neville Peterson, LLP
New York, New York 10004
August 30, 2005
Hon. Clay Shaw, Chairman,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman,
These comments are submitted on behalf of Ergodyne, Inc., of 1410
Energy Park Drive, St. Paul Minnesota 55114, with respect to H.R. 1115,
a bill which would ``clarify'' tariff rates for certain imported
``mechanics' gloves''.
For the reasons set forth below, Ergodyne submits that H.R. 1115,
if enacted in its current form, would create substantial inequities in
the United States market for certain types of work gloves. While the
bill purports to describe certain gloves ``specially designed for the
use of professional auto racing teams and general automotive
mechanics'', it in fact describes a class of industrial protection
gloves which are widely used by workers other than auto mechanics. To
avoid creating an inequity in the market for these industrial
protection gloves, Ergodyne submits that H.R. 1115 should be modified
to cover all gloves having the design characteristics described
therein, regardless of whether ``designed for use by'' auto racing or
general automotive mechanics.
In the alternative, if H.R. 1115 is limited to gloves for
professional and auto racing teams and automotive mechanics, it should
be enacted as an ``actual use'' tariff classification provision.
Interest of Commenter
Ergodyne, Inc. is a major importer and wholesaler of a wide range
of ergonomic and industrial protection products, including work gloves.
These products are widely sold in the United States through industrial
protection gear catalogues. Ergodyne imports and sells protective work
gloves which are identical in all physical respects to the gloves
described in H.R. 1115. However, the vast majority of these gloves are
not sold to professional auto racing teams or to auto mechanics, but to
companies employing workers who require protection from vibration,
shock, and other stresses which are brought to bear on workers' hands
during a variety of industrial processes.
H.R. 1115 would create a new Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
subheading 6216.00.45 covering certain ``Mechanics' gloves'', other
than knit. The bill would also create a new Additional U.S. Note to HTS
Chapter 64, which would describe the gloves covered by the new tariff
provision as follows:
For the purposes of subheading 6216.00.45, the term ``mechanics'
gloves'' means gloves especially designed for the use of professional
auto racing teams and general automotive mechanics, with the following:
synthetic leather palms and fingers; fourchettes of synthetic leather,
nylon, or elastomeric yarn; backs comprising either one layer of
knitted elastomeric fabric off heading 5407, the center layer of foam,
and the inner layer of tricot of heading 5903, whether or not including
a thermoplastic rubber logo or pad on the back; and elastic wrist
straps with molded thermoplastic rubber hook-and-loop enclosures.
The construction described in the proposed Additional U.S. Note is
a common construction for a class of well-designed work gloves. While
some gloves with these characteristics are used by auto mechanics, most
such gloves are used by workers other than auto mechanics, for
protection in the workplace.
Ergodyne notes that there is nothing about the design and
construction of these gloves which may be said to ``especially design''
them for the use of professional auto racing teams or auto mechanics.
The gloves merely have the characteristics (durable palms and fingers,
fourchettes, multilayer padded backs) typical for work gloves used by
persons to protect their hands from friction stresses and other
workplace hazards. While they might be used by auto mechanics, they are
also more commonly used by factory and warehouse workers, machinists,
carpenters, and a wide range of other industrial workers.
1. Enacting H.R. 1115 in its Present Form Will Cause Market Inequities
and Present Customs and Border Protection With Tariff
Classification Problems
Ergodyne submits that enactment of H.R. 1115 in its present form
would result in significant market inequities for sellers and
purchasers of work gloves. It would also engender substantial problems
in the tariff classification of these types of gloves, undoing several
recent Customs ruling which restored classification equity for these
products.
The tariff classification of so-called ``mechanics' gloves''
imported and sold in the United States has generated substantial
controversy in recent years.
Previously, Customs classified certain of the gloves described in
H.R. 1115 as being ``specially designed for use in sports'', and
subject to low rates of duty. This classification was not based on any
physical characteristics of the gloves themselves, but rather on the
representation of some United States importers and distributors (who
held NASCAR and similar racing association licenses) that the gloves
were suitable for use by auto racing teams or racing mechanics.\1\
Firms such as Ergodyne, which imported identical gloves (often made in
the same factories) for sale in the industrial protection sector of the
work glove marketplace were assessed with the regular, much-higher
tariff rates applicable to man-made fiber gloves. general industrial
protection functions were classified as ordinary gloves, subject to
higher tariff rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., New York Customs Rulings C81172 of November 17, 1997
and D83272 of October 28, 1998 (issued to Simpson Fire Suit Inc.); New
York Customs Ruling G80387 of August 28, 2000 (issued to Ringers Gloves
Company); New York Customs Ruling B85790 of June 5, 1997 (issued to
Midwest Air Technologies, Inc.); New York Customs Ruling A86298 of
August 8, 1996 (unknown importer); Customs Headquarters Ruling 965692
of September 18, 2002 (issued to Anza Sport Group Inc. d/b/a Mechanix
Wear, Inc.).
\2\ See, e.g., Customs Headquarters Ruling 965157 of May 14, 2002;
New York Customs Ruling G87681 of May 14, 2002 (issued to Ergodyne,
Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This disparity in tariff classification seriously injured Ergodyne
and similarly-situated firms which sell substantially identically-
constructed gloves in the industrial protection market, for the vast
majority of gloves imported as being ``specially designed for use in
sports'' were in fact sold in the industrial protection market, in
direct competition with Ergodyne's gloves. In fact, most of the
companies whose gloves were classified under the provisions for sport
gloves sold those gloves in industrial protection catalogues.
Whether the gloves in question were ``specially designed for use in
sports'' was unclear. Furthermore, to the extent these gloves were to
be classified according to use, the relevant use is the principal use
of the ``class or kind'' of merchandise to which the gloves belonged,
rather than the actual or intended use of particular gloves. In this
regard, all of the subject gloves were of the same ``class or kind'',
Ergodyne argued, and should be classified the same way.
Customs and Border Protection finally resolved the dispute, and
restored equity and uniformity to the classification of these types of
gloves, by revoking or modifying the previous rulings which had
classified these gloves as being ``specially designed for use in
sports''.\3\ These modifications and revocations were effected
following publication of notice in the Customs Bulletin and the
solicitation of public comment pursuant to Section 625 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1625).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Customs Headquarters Ruling 966647 of September 10, 2003
(revoking rulings previously issued to Simpson Fire Suit Inc.); Customs
Headquarters Ruling 966648 of September 10, 2003 (revoking ruling
issued to Ringers Gloves Company); Customs Headquarters Ruling 966432
of September 10, 2003 (revoking ruling issued to Midwest Air
Technologies); Customs Headquarters Ruling 966431 of September 10, 2003
(revoking ruling issued to unidentified importer); Customs Headquarters
Ruling 966248 of September 10, 2003 (revoking ruling issued to Anza
Sport Group Inc. d/b/a Mechanix Wear, Inc.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1115, in its present form, would reintroduce the inequities
and the classification confusion which Customs had eliminated in 2003.
To the extent that classification of gloves under proposed HTS
subheading 6216.00.45 would be predicated not only on the objective
design and construction attributes of the gloves, but also their
special `` design[] for the use of professional auto racing teams and
general automotive mechanics'', the bill would again appear to inject
use as a criterion for classification. To the extent the intended
criterion for classification is ``design for use'', there is nothing in
the construction of the gloves described in the bill which dedicates
them particularly to use by auto racing teams or general automotive
mechanics, as opposed to other kinds of workers.
Furthermore, if the classification of goods as ``mechanics'' gloves
is determined by use, the relevant use is not the use to which
particular imported gloves are put, but the principal use of the
``class or kind'' of goods to which the imported gloves belong. Most
gloves having the construction identified in the bill are not used by
auto mechanics or racing teams, but in general industrial operations.
If ``principal use'' is the relevant classification criterion, it is
possible that the proposed subheading 6216.00.45 provision for
``Mechanics' gloves'' might never be used.
In its current form, H.R. 1115 is flawed, and would create both
market inequities and difficulties in Customs administration. It should
not be enacted in its current form.
2. Congress Should Enact a Duty Reduction for the Subject Gloves Based
Solely Upon Their Construction
Ergodyne does not oppose a duty reduction for gloves if it covers
all gloves having the construction described in H.R. 1115, regardless
of intended use.
In this regard, we note that a reduction in duties for gloves of
this construction would help reduce prices in the United States, and
encourage more employers to purchase these types of gloves for their
workers' protection. In addition, there are no known domestic producers
of like or competitive gloves, so the enactment of a duty reduction
would not affect any United States manufacturing or labor interests.
The current high tariff applied to these gloves serves no industrial
protection function, and merely places a high cost on achieving safety
in the workplace.
Ergodyne believes that H.R. 1115 would be acceptable, and should be
enacted, if the term ``Mechanics' gloves'' were defined according to
the construction of the gloves alone, rather than with reference to
``use'' or ``design for use''. We recommend that H.R. 1115 be amended,
so that the proposed Additional U.S. Note to Chapter 62 of the HTS
would read as follows:
For the purposes of subheading 6216.00.45, the term ``mechanics'
gloves'' means gloves having the following characteristics: synthetic
leather palms and fingers; fourchettes of synthetic leather, nylon, or
elastomeric yarn; backs comprising either one layer of knitted
elastomeric fabric of heading 5407, the center layer of foam, and the
inner layer of tricot of heading 5903, whether or not including a
thermoplastic rubber logo or pad on the back; and elastic wrist straps
with molded thermoplastic rubber hook-and-loop enclosures.
As revised, the duty reduction provision would cover a narrow,
carefully-limited class of work gloves. While the proposed amendment
might expand the scope of proposed HTS subheading 6216.00.45, it should
not result in a significantly larger revenue loss.
The proposed revision would also make it simpler for Customs and
Border Protection to administer the tariff provision, and would prevent
classification disputes.
3. In the Alternative, H.R. 1115 Should be Enacted as a ``Actual Use''
Tariff Provision
In the event that Congress elects to enact a duty reduction measure
which is limited to gloves of a certain construction used in auto
racing and for general automobile mechanics, the bill should be amended
so as to provide for tariff classification by ``actual use''. Where
goods are classified by ``actual use'', importers are required to
provide Customs with evidence, within three years after importation,
that the goods were actually used for the purposes stated in the tariff
item, and are entitled to the lower rates of duty specified therein.
Limiting the bill in this way would prevent the re-emergence of
competitive inequities in the United States market for industrial
protection work gloves. As noted supra, these inequities plagued
suppliers of such work gloves, such as Ergodyne, until Customs finally
harmonized and made uniform the classification of these gloves in 2003.
Conclusion
Ergodyne's primary concern is to ensure that the enactment of H.R.
1115 does not recreate a competitive imbalance in the United States
market for industrial protection work gloves. To that end, while
Ergodyne believes that the bill is flawed in its current form, the
company would support the enactment of a bill which defines the term
``mechanics' gloves'' by construction rather than use, and reduces
tariffs for all such gloves. Ergodyne believes that such a reduction
would greatly benefit the safety and health of United States workers,
by making protective gloves more affordable to them and their
employers.
In the alternative, if the measure is to limited to imported gloves
for professional racing teams and auto mechanics, the bill should
provide for classification of such goods by actual use, in order to
avoid re-introducing market inequities and creating difficulties in the
administration of this tariff provision.
Ergodyne stands ready to furnish any additional information or
assistance which the Subcommittee may require regarding this measure.
John M. Peterson
Counsel to Ergodyne, Inc.
A.C. Houston Lumber Co.
North Las Vegas, Nevada 89081
August 30, 2005
Dear Congressman Shaw:
I am writing in support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd
Amendment.''
My company produces structural building components--metal-plate
connected wood trusses, wall panels, and open-web floor joists--that
are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings. We have locations in California,
Nevada, New Mexico Colorado, and Idaho. Our annual sales are $220
million and we employ over 900 people, with some of our employees in
California belonging to labor unions.
According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
Hence, the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated
through the Byrd Amendment directly harm my company's competitiveness
and profitability. Please allow me to offer the following observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
Consequently, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged additional
U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to reap the
benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the
entire first half of 2000. However, since the Byrd Amendment took
effect, the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in
2003.
Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which
leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S.
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to
these petitioning companies.
Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate
committees of Congress/
The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine,
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU, and
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish, and cigarettes
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported
from the U.S.
Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121,
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for
further information.
Michael M. Murray
Vice President
Accent Furniture
Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043
August 31, 2005
Ways And Means Committee
Subcommittee On Trade
Dear Subcommittee members:
I am writing to you regarding the Byrd Amendment and ask that the
Trade Subcommittee consider the needs of distributors and retailers who
import products, our associates, and our customers. The Byrd Amendment
was passed without consideration by the appropriate committees of
Congress and has done unforeseen injury to American companies.
My companies, which are: The Bedroom Store, Accent Furniture, and
Boyd Specialty Sleep, employ 200 people across the U.S. (100 in the St.
Louis area.) I began the company in 1977 and locally my 7 stores have
grown to be the largest supplier of bedroom products to consumers in
the St. Louis area and a major distributor to over 3000 stores like The
Bedroom Store across the country.
Since June 18, 2004, when anti-dumping duties on bedroom furniture
were announced, my bedroom furniture sales have been down in excess of
30% versus the prior year. The anti-dumping duties have limited my
customers previously open access to quality, affordable bedroom
furniture and have required me to spend thousands of dollars finding
and qualifying new sources of furniture.
I support repeal of the Byrd Amendment because:
The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on American
manufacturers who use products subject to antidumping and
countervailing duties. American companies are the ones that pay these
duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, they have these duty
payments transferred to their U.S. competitors. Therefore, part of an
industry is taxed to subsidize another part of that industry.
The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few
companies that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually
undermines it. Most American manufacturers do not benefit from the Byrd
Amendment. More than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to
only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to
only 44 companies.
The Byrd Amendment does not restrict the recipients' use
of Byrd Amendment money.
Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on
``qualified expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by
Customs or any government agency.
The Byrd Amendment annually funnels money collected from
the imposition of anti-dumping duties from government coffers to
companies that petition for those duties. Such funneling has totaled
more than $1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions
knowing full well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S.
companies in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to
include more products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including
products not even made in the U.S. Because the duties on the imported
products are funneled to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment
creates a disincentive to produce the product subject to the duty in
the U.S.
We rely on open trade for our export sales and our
purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment makes importing raw materials
more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and uncertainty.
This law was passed without consideration by the
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to
American companies.
The antidumping and countervailing duty laws are more
arbitrary, the duties are higher and orders are harder to revoke or
change as a result of the Byrd Amendment.
This harms consuming industries, but they have no ability
to participate meaningfully in these cases. Repeal of the Byrd
Amendment is an essential step in allowing consuming industries an
opportunity to protect their interests as a matter of fundamental
fairness.
We export products that are actually or potentially
subject to retaliation: our major trading partners will take action
against U.S. exports as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal
this WTO-illegal measure.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you would like any
additional input on how the Byrd Amendment has harmed my company and
customers. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dennis Boyd
President
AK Steel Corporation
Middletown, Ohio 45043
August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We note your advisory dated July 25, 2005 requesting written
comment on technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and Miscellaneous
Duty Suspension bills. Among the bills listed in the release is H.R.
1121, a bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000, and the
related measure, H.R. 2473. AK Steel strongly opposes both of these
measures. We believe the consideration of these measures at this time
would seriously undermine the direction of U.S. trade policy as
established by the Administration and by Congress itself.
Headquartered in Middletown, Ohio, AK Steel produces flat-rolled
carbon, stainless and electrical steel products, as well as carbon and
stainless tubular steel products for automotive, appliance,
construction, and manufacturing markets. We have manufacturing
facilities in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky which employ a total
of about 8,000 men and women. In March of this year we were named one
of America's ``most admired companies'' in a survey conducted by
Fortune magazine that rated companies on eight criteria, including
quality of management, innovation, and quality of products and
services.
The antidumping and subsidies laws were negotiated, written and
endorsed by the world's trading nations over 50 years ago. They are
well-recognized, well-established remedies for unfair trade that are
only available when a domestic industry conclusively proves that it has
been injured by clearly demonstrated dumping.
We firmly believe that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act
has been and continues to be an appropriate, effective, and legal
response when foreign competitors engage in dumping or benefit from
unfair subsidies. We strongly support the value of this measure that
has been an effective tool in preserving the manufacturing base of this
country in critical industries, and preventing the elimination of U.S.
jobs.
We particularly oppose any legislative activity to repeal the CDSOA
at this time. Congress itself recognized that the appropriate forum for
determining the future of CDSOA payments is in international trade
discussions. In January 2004, Congress, in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, directed the Administration to conduct negotiations
within the World Trade Organization on the question of the rights of
WTO members to distribute monies collected from antidumping and
countervailing duties.'' The Administration has, in the current Doha
Round, proposed that the relevant WTO agreements be revised to clarify
that anti-dumping and countervailing duty payments may be distributed
as the member country deems appropriate.
Repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act would be
detrimental to the critical manufacturing sector of the economy, and
would undermine internationally recognized principles of trade policy.
Given Congress's statement in the 2004 appropriations measure, and the
on-going consideration of these issues through the WTO, it would be
particularly ill-advised to consider repeal of the legislation at this
time. For these reasons, we strongly urge the committee to delete H.R.
1121, and the related measure, H.R. 2473, from the list of measures to
be considered by the committee at this time.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
James L. Wainscott
President and CEO
Alcoa
Washington, DC 20006
August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Alcoa Inc., headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and operating
in over 400 locations in 43 countries, supports H.R. 1121, legislation
to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA),
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. Alcoa also supports the inclusion
of H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill.
Alcoa is the world's largest aluminum producer. Aluminum is in turn
one of the most versatile products made in the modern world; it is a
key commodity and its alloys are used in production of industrial
products, aircraft, missiles and other defense apparatus, automobiles
and auto parts, as well as numerous products used in and around homes
and offices.
Alcoa is a proponent of a fair U.S. trade policy--first and
foremost, this must be based on adherence to international rules
governing the regulation of trade. The Byrd Amendment violates these
rules and the U.S. is clearly obligated to bring its laws into
conformity with the requirements we agreed to with our trading
partners.
However, this is not the only reason for repealing the Byrd
Amendment. It has also generated unintended adverse consequences for
American industry, including Alcoa.
The Byrd Amendment provides a ``double hit'' on importers and
consumers of products subject to antidumping and countervailing duties.
That is, duties are collected by the government and then paid over to
U.S. companies, including competitors of foreign producers and U.S.
companies that did not support petitions when they were brought. It
encourages U.S. producers to file cases they might not otherwise
support, and to include
additional products within those cases to maximize payments, even
if the producers do not even make all the products subject to the
cases. The Amendment also encourages antidumping and countervailing
duty orders to be continued after the five-year ``sunset'' review
period.
In addition, the Byrd Amendment provides money for recipients with
no strings attached. There is no indication that these funds have
strengthened the companies that receive them in their international
competitiveness. Without this assurance, the receipt of Byrd Amendment
money may serve no public purpose. Moreover, the payment process is not
effectively audited. More than $1 billion has been paid to date.
It also appears that the Byrd Amendment has fomented destructive
trade disputes with close allies like Canada.
Finally, of course, repeal of the Byrd Amendment is required by
international trade rules. As a global company, Alcoa sees the
importance of trade liberalizing agreements. U.S. leadership on trade
issues is not possible without the adhering to the fundamental rules of
trade, including complying with WTO decisions.
Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an essential step in allowing
consuming industries an opportunity to protect their interests and is a
matter of fundamental fairness.
Russell C. Wisor
Vice President, Government Affairs
Statement of Jon D. Walton, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (``ATI'') submits these
comments in strong opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff
Bill (``MTB''), a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``the Byrd Amendment''), and in
opposition to H.R. 2473 (also contained in the MTB), which alters the
calculation of the ``all others'' rate in the antidumping and
countervailing duty cases and would significantly reduce the amount of
duties collected and distributed under CDSOA. We believe that
continuation of the Byrd Amendment in its current form is essential to
preserving the remedial effect of the U.S. antidumping and
countervailing duty laws.
ATI is one of the largest and most diversified specialty materials
producers in the world with revenues of approximately $2.7 billion in
2004. ATI has approximately 9,000 full-time employees world-wide who
use innovative technologies to offer growing global markets a wide
range of specialty materials solutions. ATI's products include nickel-
based alloys and superalloys, titanium and titanium alloys, stainless
and specialty steels, zirconium, hafnium, and niobium, tungsten
materials, silicon and tool steels, and forgings and castings.
ATI Allegheny Ludlum, an Allegheny Technologies company, is a world
leader in the production and marketing of sheet, plate, and strip
specialty materials including stainless steel, nickel-based alloys,
titanium, and titanium-based alloys. The company also produces grain-
oriented silicon electrical steel products, and tool steel plate.
Allegheny Ludlum has approximately 3,700 full-time employees
principally located in the United States.
Allegheny Ludlum has received CDSOA disbursements since the
inception of the program in 2001. In 2004, Allegheny Ludlum received
CDSOA disbursements of approximately $2.5 million. These disbursements
have had a positive effect on Allegheny Ludlum's net income, investment
in property, plant and equipment, research and development and
employment, which, in turn, have had a positive effect on the company's
ability to compete.
We understand that H.R. 1121 is intended to conform U.S. law to the
January 16, 2003 decision of the WTO Appellate Body which found the
CDSOA to be a nonpermissible ``specific action against'' dumping or
subsidization. We believe that the Appellate Body's ruling is
erroneous. Nothing in the WTO agreements addresses the ways that WTO
members may use antidumping and countervailing duties once they have
been paid.
The CDSOA does not impose sanctions against dumping or
subsidization any greater than those permitted under the WTO
agreements; the Byrd Amendment did not raise the amount of antidumping
and countervailing duties permissible under U.S. law and the WTO
agreements. It simply applies the duties collected in a manner designed
to remedy the ongoing injury caused by the continuation of unfair trade
practices.
ATI expects that Congress will actively support manufacturing jobs
in the United States by opposing repeal of CDSOA and by supporting the
U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by
Congress. We note that Congress has called for our trade negotiators in
the ongoing Doha Round to push for revision of the WTO agreements so
that CDSOA and similar programs relating to the use by individual
countries of the antidumping and countervailing duties they collect
will be expressly accepted as consistent with WTO. We believe that this
approach would improve the effectiveness throughout the world of long-
accepted disciplines aimed at discouraging dumping and subsidization of
exports. The United States and the world trading system would be better
for it.
For these reasons, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated respectfully
urges the Committee to report H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 unfavorably.
Alperts, Inc.
Seekonk, MA 02771
August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of Alperts, Inc., I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as
the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this legislation's
inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill. Headquartered in Seekonk,
MA, Alperts has 165 employees with 2005 sales in excess of $42 million.
In 2003 a group of domestic furniture manufacturers worked to
restrict consumer access to affordable high quality wooden bedroom
furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition against furniture from
China with the Commerce Department and the International Trade
Commission. We believe that these petitioners were primarily motivated
by the prospects of Byrd Amendment funds.
Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden
bedroom furniture, Alperts not only must pay the duties but also see
the monies in the future transferred to selected domestic manufacturers
that we compete directly against! Dumping duties by their nature are
supposed to increase the costs of goods, thereby making ``unfair''
imports ``fair.'' Transferring the duties back to the U.S. producers
causes a double benefit to those companies who filed the petition. Not
only do they raise the price of goods to U.S. consumers, but the U.S.
producers then collect huge payments from the government, with no
requirements that they do anything with this money.
The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to nine companies, and
about 80 percent to only 44 companies nationwide.
Again, the furniture manufacturers who filed the trade petition
will not be required to use the Byrd money they receive for job
retraining or to improve their competitiveness. Instead, these
companies can sit back and receive a government handout on every wood
bedroom product imported into this country from China, and it goes
right into their bottom-line. Bombay's millions of customers across
America depend on having access to quality furniture for their homes at
a reasonable price. We ask that the Trade Subcommittee consider the
needs of retailers who import products, our employees, and our
customers. The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to
American companies.
As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R.
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill and once again applaud you for
your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Hershel L. Alpert
President
American Apparel and Footwear Association
Arlington, Virginia 22209
September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215
Dear Chairman Shaw:
On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result,
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the
Administrative Procedures Act.
HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment.
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S.
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be
made a priority.
HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which
we understand has been withdrawn.]
Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in
the United States.
HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress.
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics
that are already designated in short supply under various trade
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S.
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on certain filament yarns
Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation,
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be
extended.
HR 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported
into the United States.
Comments: AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents,
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that
anomaly.
In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles,
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
Please contact me should you require additional information on
these or other provisions.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Lamar
Sr. Vice President
[By permission of the Chairman:]
American Chamber of Commerce in Germany
Berlin, Germany
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw,
The American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham Germany)
welcomes the opportunity to comment on, and supports the inclusion into
a miscellaneous trade legislation of the bill H.R. 1121 repealing
Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Section 754 was enacted by the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset
Act of 2000 (CDSOA or ``Byrd Amendment''). This act is at the heart of
a major dispute in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) opposing the
United States and its main trading partners, including Germany. Its
repeal would remove a serious trade irritant that prejudices the United
States' trade relations and its credibility as a reliable partner in
the WTO.
The CDSOA is a breach of the letter and spirit of the WTO rules
The enactment of the CDSOA raised immediate and widespread concerns
not only in the European Union but in the whole WTO membership. 11
members (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EU, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand) brought a complaint under the
dispute settlement proceeding and were supported by 5 other members
(Argentina, Costa Rica, Hong Kong (China), Israel, Norway). It was the
first time in the history of the Organisation that so many members
joined forces to challenge a measure taken by another member.
There was no doubt that the CDSOA was contrary to the basic
obligation to limit action against dumping or subsidisation to the
remedies specifically available under the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
agreements (i.e. duties on imports of the dumped or subsidised goods,
undertakings on minimum import prices or, in the case of a subsidy,
multilaterally sanctioned countermeasures). The CDSOA distributes the
collected anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to the companies that
brought or supported those trade remedy cases. Thereby, the CDSOA
imposes a second hit on dumped or subsidised products: domestic
producers are, first, protected by anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties
and, second they receive subsidies paid from these duties at the
expense of their competitors. This overcompensates the dumping or
subsidisation and upsets the fair competition previously restored by
the imposition of duties to the detriment of exporters, U.S. importers,
U.S. consuming industries and U.S. producers that are not eligible to
the CDSOA payments. The Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO fully
confirmed this legal assessment in a widely expected decision in
January 2003.
The limitation of the remedies available against dumping or
subsidisation is a cornerstone obligation of the WTO and must
remain
AmCham Germany is aware of requests to negotiate rules in the WTO
that would ``legalize'' the CDSOA and wishes to express its opposition
to such negotiations.
Such a change of the WTO rule-book would be fundamentally misguided
and against the interests of all WTO members including of the United
States. The limitation of the remedies available is one of the
obligations that maintain the delicate balance between trade
liberalisation and a legitimate protection of national industries
against unfair competition.
The inevitable consequence of authorizing multilaterally the
disbursement of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to subsidize
the national competitors of the exporters would be a proliferation of
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duty actions, which would have a major
negative impact on world trade, including on U.S. exports.
AmCham Germany wishes to draw the attention of the Committee to
statistics published by the WTO on the anti-dumping activity over the
last 10 years (1995-2004).\1\ They show that the United States has been
over that period the third most targeted WTO member in terms of
initiation of anti-dumping investigations and the fourth most targeted
member in terms of anti-dumping measures imposed. A legalization of a
redistribution mechanism such as the CDSOA would therefore not be in
the interest of the U.S. producers as they would be hit next in their
export markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available on the WTO website at: http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The repeal of the CDSOA does not affect the ability of the United
States to protect its industry from unfair competition
The CDSOA is an ``added piece'' to the United States' system of
protection against dumping or subsidisation. Repealing it would leave
this system unaffected and would therefore not affect the United
States' ability to provide to its companies and workers a legitimate
protection against unfair competition. The imposition of anti-dumping
and anti-subsidy duties (or other remedies specifically authorised by
the relevant WTO agreements) ensures the required protection.
The CDSOA was also presented as the adequate way to respond to
continued dumping and subsidisation which prevents market prices from
returning to fair levels and frustrates the remedial purpose of the
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties. It may happen that dumping or
subsidisation increases over time and that the duty initially imposed
becomes insufficient to neutralise it but other adequate legal
recourses are and will continue to be available. Thus, WTO rules allow
for the review of the level of the duty and the retroactive application
of the revised duty rate, thereby cancelling out any unfair competitive
advantage that could result from increasing the level of dumping or
subsidisation.
These rules are implemented in U.S. legislation by Section 751(a)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 which allows United States' companies to
require every year a review of the duty, which result will be applied
retroactively.
Ignoring the DSB ruling and recommendation fundamentally affects the
United States' interests
The United States had 11 months (until 27 December 2003) to bring
its legislation into conformity with the WTO rules, but the deadline
expired without any concrete signs of forthcoming compliance with the
WTO ruling. The European Union subsequently requested the authorisation
to retaliate against the United States. Brazil, Canada, Chile, India,
Japan, Korea and Mexico acted likewise.
The European Union started the application of retaliatory measures
on 1 May 2005 in the form of a 15% additional import duty on a range of
U.S. products including paper and textile products, machinery and sweet
corn. In accordance with the arbitration award, the level of
retaliation will be revised annually and new products may then become
subject to retaliation. Canada has also applied a 15% additional import
duty on live swine, tobacco, oysters, specialty fish originating in the
United States since 1 May 2005. Japan recently announced that it would
apply a 15% additional duty on certain U.S. products as from 1
September 2005 and Mexico has just published a decree applying
retaliatory measures on certain U.S. products as from 18 August. The
other complainants are taking preparatory steps to exercise their
retaliation rights in the WTO. Domestic requirements impose different
calendars, but all may apply retaliation at any time they deem
appropriate as all required steps in the WTO have now been completed.
Again, this is the first time in the history of the WTO that so
many members are authorised to impose retaliatory measures. More
tellingly, these eight members represent the major trading partners of
the United States with 71% of total U.S. exports and 64% of total U.S.
imports.
By contrast, the legislation at the root of this dispute only
benefits a handful of companies. Two companies have received more than
one third of the money distributed so far (i.e. more than U.S. $ 366
million out of the roughly U.S. $ 1 billion disbursed in the first four
distributions) and every year half of the payments went to a very
limited number of companies (4 in 2001, 3 in 2002, 2 in 2003 and 9 in
2004).
As a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) economic analysis \2\ shows,
the CDSOA creates incentives to U.S.-producers to file complaints in
order to receive CDSOA payments. It also results in inefficiencies in
production, makes retaliation by trading partners more likely,
discourages the settlement of cases, and leads to increased transaction
costs. Hence, the ``Byrd Amendment'' is detrimental to the overall
economic welfare of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
51xx/doc5130/03-02-ThomasLetter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a systemic point of view, the dispute settlement system is a
fundamental pillar of the WTO. It provides security and predictability
to the multilateral trading system. Its credibility depends on its
strict observance by the members. The failure of the United States, one
of the world's leading trading nations, to comply fully in timely
manner with its WTO obligations is damaging to the credibility and
effective functioning of the rule-based trading system. Undermining WTO
disciplines harms the interests of all members, including those of the
United States.
AmCham Germany continuously strives to promote the further
liberalization of trade and therefore supports the dispute settlement
process of and decisions made by the WTO. In order to strengthen the
transatlantic relationship, AmCham Germany encourages both the U.S. and
EU to jointly work on solving this dispute in a manner, that does not
harm businesses on either side of the Atlantic.
Our members, both American and German companies, strongly rely on
open trade for their business. Therefore, the Byrd Amendment
constitutes harm for our membership base. Not only is it detrimental to
multinational, transatlantic business, but also--first and foremost--to
U.S. business interests: American business relies upon the multilateral
trading system in the context of the WTO and a global exchange of goods
without countervailing duties. Further, resulting from the lack of fair
competition, American consumers are burdened with higher prices.
Thus, AmCham Germany trusts that the Committee will appreciate the
utmost importance for the United States to abide by its WTO obligations
and repeal the CDSOA without further delay.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dierk Muller
General Manager
______
American Chamber of Commerce in Germany e.V.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham) is a private,
non-profit organization. With over 3,000 members, it is the largest
bilateral economic organization in Europe and represents the largest
group of foreign investors in Germany. AmCham Germany's goals include
strengthening German-American economic relations and promoting Germany
as an investment location. The chamber also serves as a link to
investors in the United States.
Statement of The American Iron and Steel Institute
In response to the request for written comments with respect to
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty
suspension proposals,\1\ the American Iron and Steel Institute
(``AISI'') is pleased to provide the following comments regarding
several of the bills listed in the Subcommittee's advisory (and
proposed for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade package). As described
below, these proposals are highly controversial, raise a number of
substantive concerns and are not suitable for inclusion in a
miscellaneous tariff bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Advisory from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, requesting comments on
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty
suspension bills (July 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1121 (Repeal of ``Byrd Amendment'')
One of the measures listed in the Subcommittee's advisory for
potential inclusion in the miscellaneous tariff bill is H.R. 1121,
which would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
(``CDSOA''), often referred to as the ``Byrd Amendment'' (providing for
the distribution of unfair trade duties to companies and workers
injured by unfair foreign practices). H.R. 1121 is not only highly
controversial, but is unnecessary given that Congress has clearly
expressed the view that the ongoing dispute relating to the Byrd
Amendment should be resolved in international negotiations. Inclusion
of this measure in the miscellaneous tariff package would clearly give
rise to substantial opposition to the overall bill, and is certainly
not appropriate given the historic practice of limiting this bill to
non-controversial items. Several points are important in this regard.
First, the proposal to repeal the Byrd Amendment is apparently
intended to implement the WTO Appellate Body's decision in United
States--Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The WTO
decision in this case, however, has been roundly criticized, including
by the Bush Administration, as an example of judicial overreaching and
the creation of obligations not found in the applicable WTO agreements.
While the WTO Appellate Body ruled that lawfully collected antidumping
and countervailing duties may not be distributed to injured domestic
producers, the fact is that the negotiators of the relevant WTO
agreements never even considered, much less undertook, any restrictions
on how WTO Members may spend lawfully collected duties. In finding
otherwise, the Appellate Body simply invented obligations that were not
agreed to by U.S. negotiators or approved by Congress.
Second, as Congress has recognized, this matter can and should be
resolved through another, more appropriate avenue--the ongoing Doha
Round of WTO negotiations. In this regard, the WTO's ruling in the Byrd
case prompted 70 Senators to send a letter to President Bush in
February 2003 urging him to seek, through trade negotiations, express
recognition of the existing right of WTO Members to distribute monies
lawfully collected from antidumping and countervailing duties as they
saw fit. Moreover, Congress included in its Fiscal Year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill a provision directing the Bush Administration to
immediately initiate WTO negotiations to recognize this right. The Bush
Administration has now put this issue on the table of the Doha Round
negotiations. This effort at a negotiated fix for the Appellate Body's
decision should be given an opportunity to succeed--rather than rushing
to repeal a critical U.S. law in the face of a flawed WTO dispute
settlement decision.
The Byrd Amendment has served a critical role in allowing U.S.
industries devastated by unfair trade, including the steel industry, to
make necessary investments and regain their competitive footing. It is
important to emphasize that Byrd Amendment funds are made available
only where, and to the extent, unfair trade continues after antidumping
or countervailing duty orders have been put in place. When dumping and
subsidization do not cease even in the face of such orders, it is
essential that Byrd Amendment funds be provided to the affected
domestic producers that are injured by such market-distorting behavior.
Repealing the Byrd Amendment would deliver a major blow to U.S.
manufacturers--along with agricultural and fishery industries--at a
time when they face growing challenges from unfair trade.
In short, including H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous tariff package
would be unwise, unnecessary and highly controversial. Rather than
pursuing such flawed legislation, the United States should continue to
seek a negotiated solution for this issue at the WTO.
H.R. 2473 (Changes to Calculation of ``All Others'' Rate)
The Subcommittee's advisory also lists H.R. 2473 among the
potential measures for inclusion in a miscellaneous tariff bill. As
with proposals to repeal the Byrd Amendment, this measure would be
highly controversial and has no place in the legislation under
consideration.
H.R. 2473 includes language amending the ``all others'' rate
provision of the antidumping statute--once again, apparently intended
to implement an adverse decision of the WTO Appellate Body. In
particular, in United States--Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan (``Japan Hot-Rolled''), the Appellate
Body found that antidumping authorities may not calculate an ``all
others'' antidumping duty rate for non-investigated companies using
dumping margins that contain any element of ``facts available.'' \2\
(The use of so-called ``facts available'' relates to reliance on
alternative sources of information where a respondent fails to provide
complete or accurate information in the course of an antidumping
proceeding). As the Bush Administration recognized when this decision
was issued, the Appellate Body failed to follow the appropriate
standard of review in reaching its decision and, as a result, the
decision was deeply flawed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``All others'' rates are applied to non-investigated companies
in antidumping cases and are calculated based on the duty rates of
individually investigated producers. See 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673d(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the Appellate Body's decision and the proposed amendment to
the ``all others'' rate provision to implement it would raise a whole
host of practical concerns about how meaningful ``all others'' rates
could be calculated and about the administration of the antidumping
law. Because the use of some degree of facts available is often
required to calculate accurate trade remedy margins and meaningfully
implement the statute, the Appellate Body's decision and the proposed
amendment could make it impossible for the Department of Commerce to
calculate an ``all others'' rate for non-investigated companies in many
antidumping cases. This is a complex and controversial issue that
certainly is not appropriately addressed in a miscellaneous tariff
bill. As with the Byrd Amendment, the United States has also put this
issue on the table of the Doha Round negotiations, and this effort
should be allowed to proceed accordingly.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the
Subcommittee and hope that they will be taken into account in ongoing
deliberations regarding the miscellaneous tariff bill.
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition
Washington, DC 20006
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This submission from AMTAC is in response to the July 25, 2005,
Subcommittee Advisory No. TR-3. which requested comments for the record
regarding proposed bills concerning ``technical corrections to U.S.
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.'' A list of
these miscellaneous trade bills is provided in the Advisory.
AMTAC represents over 200 domestic manufacturing companies in the
textile, apparel, furniture, machine tool, steel products, plastics and
other industry sectors which employ over American 35,000 workers with
well-paying manufacturing jobs.
AMTAC opposes H.R. 1121. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section
754 of the Tariff Act of 1930'' proposed for inclusion in this package.
This bill is highly controversial and should be deleted from the
miscellaneous tariff bill, since that vehicle has historically been
utilized for non-controversial provisions.
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To AMTAC:
AMTAC's manufacturing members, like all true domestic
manufacturers, are facing a broad range of predatory trade challenges.
These U.S. companies are in desperate need of a level playing field,
and easier access to more effective trade remedies. Instead we have
seen U.S. trade law amended in recent years to make access to remedies
more difficult, and the remedies themselves weakened, through measures
such as H.R. 1121.
H.R. 1121 will undermine trade remedy laws in the ways detailed
below.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:
This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
Under CDSOA, the U.S. government to eligible domestic
industries found to have been injured by dumped or subsidized imports
distributes duties that are collected as a result of continued dumping
or subsidization.
CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our
foreign competitors do not cease.
CDSOA distributes money only when dumping and
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO Panel or
Appellate Body Decisions
H.R. 1121 is designed to change U.S. law in response to
controversial decisions by WTO dispute panels and Appellate Body. A
non-controversial miscellaneous trade bill is not the appropriate
vehicle to make such legislative changes to our trade laws.
H.R. 1121 clearly responds to specific cases where WTO panels and
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach.
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S.
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from
the text of the WTO Agreements.
In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just
that in the Doha Round negotiations. H.R. 1121, if legislated, would
interfere in these efforts.
In conclusion, H.R. 1121 needs to be expeditiously removed from the
proposed miscellaneous trade bill.
Sincerely,
Auggie Tantillo
Executive Director
American Wholesale Furniture
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of my company, American Wholesale Furniture, I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation
to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA),
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. Our company, which relies on
imported products, strongly supports this legislation's inclusion in
the miscellaneous trade bill.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, American Wholesale Furniture has
50 employees with 2004 sales at $20 million. We represent and supply
more than 1,100 midsize retailers in the Midwest states, who employee
more than 11,000 employees; who all rely on this imported product.
We support H.R. 1121's inclusion for the following reasons:
The Byrd Amendment creates a clear incentive to file
antidumping and countervailing duty cases. U.S. companies in line to
receive payments have a clear incentive to include more products within
the scope of cases, including products not even made in the United
States. Consumers see cases filed because of the promise of Byrd money.
Other cases include products not even produced here.
The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies.
More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44
companies nationwide.
The prospect of Byrd Amendment money discourages
settlement of antidumping and countervailing duty cases through
suspension agreements, and creates an incentive for petitioners to
broaden the scope of cases, often including products not even made in
the United States or made in inadequate quantities. As a result, cases
are broader, last longer and do more damage to consuming industries.
Those who filed and support trade petitions are not
required to use the Byrd money they receive for capital investments,
job creation, worker retraining or improving U.S. competitiveness.
There are no provisions in the law for any particular use for these
funds. These companies receive a government handout and may insert the
funds directly into their bottom lines.
Byrd Amendment distributions can actually encourage the
loss of American jobs offshore. Large U.S. Byrd Amendment recipients
import products from countries that are subject to dumping orders.
Their Byrd Amendment distributions can offset the dumping duties paid,
giving the company an exemption from the impact of antidumping laws.
They, unlike non-Byrd recipients, can import dumped products from their
affiliates overseas without having to bear the financial burden of
antidumping duties, since the U.S. government reimburses them.
Congress must consider repeal of the Byrd Amendment as quickly as
possible. The inequities suffered by U.S. consuming industries are real
and growing. Moreover, retaliation by our trading partners is
increasing. Congress can avoid this looming catastrophe by acting
promptly to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
The Byrd Amendment is bad policy for the United States economy and
the American people. We urge the Committee to incorporate the
legislation introduced by Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the
Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to attach it to any viable legislation to
assure its being enacted without delay. This bill was adopted in the
dead of night--it should be repealed in broad daylight with the
greatest possible speed.
We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the
Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Jim Mahin
American Wholesale Furniture
Ampac Packaging, LLC
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
August 22, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on
behalf of Ampac Packaging, LLC and its 850 employees to express our
strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act
(``CDSOA''). The bill is highly controversial. It cannot be fairly
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
Ampac Packaging, LLC is a privately owned, diversified
international flexible packaging company with nine manufacturing
centers. Ampac's primary products include upscale, domestic and
overseas retail shopping bags, security bags and envelopes, over 200
customer and proprietary film blends, stand-up pouches (with a variety
of closures, fitments and spouts) and high-end performance rollstock.
Last year, our industry won antidumping cases against polyethylene
retail carrier bags (``PRCBs'') from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.
With the antidumping orders now in place, we are concerned that some
exporters are continuing to dump, absorbing the antidumping duties, and
refusing to raise prices to non-injurious levels. CDSOA both
discourages continued dumping and also compensates the victims of such
continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that antidumping
duties are distributed to the supporters of the original antidumping
petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA distributions.
Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
Contrary to false claims of some consumers of unfairly priced
imports, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000. Our industry filed our antidumping
petitions because we were being injured by unfairly priced imports, not
because of CDSOA.
Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in
Geneva are considering a United States proposal to change the WTO
Antidumping Agreement to clarify that that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, Congress
should continue to urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this
controversial issue in the Doha Round.
Thank you for considering these comments.
John Q. Baumann
President and CEO
Ash Grove Cement Company
Overland Park, Kansas 66210
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am
writing on behalf of the Ash Grove Cement Company to express our strong
opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections
to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121
is a highly controversial bill that would repeal the Continued Dumping
and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no means be fairly
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
Founded in 1882 and based in Overland Park, Kansas, Ash Grove
operates nine cement plants, 23 cement terminals, one lime plant in the
U.S. and has numerous subsidiaries in the concrete and aggregate
industry.
In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer,
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to
create new jobs.
Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004,
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha
Round.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Charles T. Sunderland
Chairman of the Board
Association of Food Industries, Inc.
Neptune, New Jersey 07753
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354
Dear Chairman Shaw:
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Association of Food
Industries, Inc. (AFI) in support of H.R. 1121, a bill to repeal
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
Sec. 1675c, the so-called Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act,
otherwise know as the ``Byrd Amendment.'' AFI is a trade association
composed of approximately 200 U.S. member-companies that import a wide
variety of food products from around the world. Several of these
products are subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties (AD/
CVD), including: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; Certain Pasta
from Italy; Preserved Mushrooms from Chile; and Individually Quick
Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile.
AFI supports H.R. 1121 and repeal of the Byrd Amendment for several
reasons.
The Byrd Amendment has been ruled illegal by the World
Trade Organization. Because of this country's failure to repeal the
provision today, the WTO has authorized several of our major trading
partners to institute retaliatory measures against U.S. exports.
Indeed, Canada, the European Union and Japan have already established
retaliatory tariffs. Several other major trading partners--including
Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico and South Korea have gained authorization
from the WTO to impose retaliatory duties of their own.
Obviously, it is highly unjust for certain select domestic
producers to reap the benefits of Byrd Amendment payouts, while a much
larger group of U.S. exporters--most of whom have not received a dime
of ``Byrd money''--are laden with punitive tariffs.
As the largest and most influential member of the WTO, the United
States has an inherent obligation to abide by--not ignore--WTO rulings,
even when those rulings may displease certain private sectors of our
economy or interests within the legislative branch. If not, we can not
realistically expect our trading partners around the globe to respect
or adhere to WTO rulings that favor the position of the United States.
There should be no mistake: when we thumb our nose at the rules-
based international trading system that this country is primarily
responsible for establishing in the first place, we indelibly stain our
claim to moral leadership in the global economy. This is not a proud
position to take, especially in these precipitous times.
The Byrd Amendment is unfairly punitive as to U.S.
importers. These companies must operate under the weight of
antidumping/countervailing duty measures regarding their trade in food
products covered by such orders. While AFI respectfully submits that
there are substantial flaws in the implementation of such orders--
including frequent and inexcusable delays in the liquidation of entries
to which AD/CVD duties apply--they understand that these measures are
legally sanctioned by the WTO and U.S. law. When AD/CVD duties are
imposed, they are paid.
However, there is no sound or just national or economic policy to
justify remission of these duties to the U.S. companies that filed or
supported the AD/CVD petitions. The purpose of AD/CVD orders is to
equalize pricing in the U.S. and ``home'' markets; it is not to provide
a windfall for U.S. producers.
The clear inequity and demonstrable illegality of the
Byrd Amendment is a direct consequence of the fact that it was approved
by Congress through ``back door'' channels as a last minute amendment
to an appropriations bill. It was NOT reviewed by the Subcommittees and
Committees of jurisdiction, the very bodies to which such measures
should be and typically are routinely referred so as to benefit from a
knowledgeable and dispassionate review in light of existing law,
international obligations and sound national and economic policy.
Every dollar of Byrd Amendment money that does to a
domestic petitioner/supporter is a dollar that no longer goes to the
general fund of the U.S. Treasury. In other words, the Byrd Amendment
operates as a drain on the budget of the United States which, at the
very least, exacerbates the already dire budgetary shortfall in this
country. It is, purely and simply, a ``deficit enabler.''
As a result of the diversion of AD/CVD duties from the U.S.
Treasury to the pockets of domestic petitioners/supporters, government
agencies and programs must make do with less, or the revenue lost would
need to be otherwise re-generated through some form of tax hike or new
fees. In either case, the American public loses.
There should be nothing controversial about the repeal of an
illegal and ill-considered statutory provision. As this country aims in
the current Doha Round of multilateral negotiations under the WTO to
eliminate government subsidies provided abroad, we should not be
fostering an illegal subsidy on our own shores. The time for repeal of
the Byrd Amendment is now.
For these reasons, AFI strongly supports passage of H.R. 1121.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeffrey S. Levin
Counsel to the Association of Food Industries, Inc.
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
Arlington, Virginia 22201
August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
1238 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw:
On behalf of the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), I want to express our strong support for
the inclusion of H.R. 1121, a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), in the miscellaneous trade bill.
AIAM is a trade association representing 14 international motor
vehicle manufacturers who have invested over $27 billion to manufacture
about 30 percent of all passenger cars and light trucks produced in the
United States. AIAM members directly employ over 93,000 Americans, and
generate an additional 500,000 U.S. jobs in dealerships and supplier
industries nationwide. AIAM members include Aston Martin, Ferrari,
Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot,
Renault, Subaru, Suzuki and Toyota. AIAM also represents original
equipment suppliers and other automotive-related trade associations.
While we have many objections to the CDSOA, commonly known as ``The
Byrd Amendment,'' we will focus on three of them. We strongly believe
the Byrd Amendment is counterproductive to U.S. trade policy and
injurious to U.S. manufacturers, especially to those which may use
products subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. American
companies pay these duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, these
payments are then arbitrarily transferred to their competitors. As a
result, one part of U.S. industry is taxed to subsidize another part of
U.S. industry and one segment of the industry is pitted against
another. This is bad policy and bad economics.
As if this was not bad enough, the Byrd Amendment has become a
``double whammy'' on U.S. business. In 2002, The World Trade
Organization (WTO) determined the Byrd Amendment violates provisions of
the WTO. The European Union, Canada, Japan and Mexico, among others,
are either retaliating against U.S. exporters, or are in the process of
doing so. Thus successful U.S. exporters who also may be paying
antidumping or countervailing duties are now doubly penalized to pay
for this injurious policy.
Our third objection is that the Byrd Amendment does not require the
recipient of the funds to use them to improve the competitiveness of
its business. There are only minimal restrictions on the use of the
money and that use is not monitored. The money is simply a gift from
the U.S. Treasury. This is bad policy.
We strongly urge inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous trade
bill. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Timothy C. MacCarthy
President and CEO
Statement of Michael Thomas DeArmon, Backyard Ventures, Amarillo, Texas
We support repeal of the Byrd Amendment (Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act) because:
The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on American
manufacturers who use products subject to antidumping and
countervailing duties. American companies are the ones that pay these
duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, they have these duty
payments transferred to their U.S. competitors. Therefore, part of an
industry is taxed to subsidize another part of that industry.
The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few
companies that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually
undermines it. Most American manufacturers do not benefit from the Byrd
Amendment. More than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to
only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to
only 44 companies.
The Byrd Amendment does not restrict the recipients' use
of Byrd Amendment money.
Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on
``qualified expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by
Customs or any government agency.
The Byrd Amendment annually funnels money collected from
the imposition of anti-dumping duties from government coffers to
companies that petition for those duties. Such funneling has totaled
more than $1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions
knowing full well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S.
companies in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to
include more products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including
products not even made in the U.S. Because the duties on the imported
products are funneled to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment
creates a disincentive to produce the product subject to the duty in
the U.S.
We rely on open trade for our export sales and our
purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment makes importing raw materials
more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and uncertainty.
This law was passed without consideration by the
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to
American companies.
The antidumping and countervailing duty laws are more
arbitrary, the duties are higher and orders are harder to revoke or
change as a result of the Byrd Amendment.
This harms consuming industries, but they have no ability
to participate meaningfully in these cases. Repeal of the Byrd
Amendment is an essential step in allowing consuming industries an
opportunity to protect their interests as a matter of fundamental
fairness.
We export products that are actually or potentially
subject to retaliation: our major trading partners will take action
against U.S. exports as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal
this WTO-illegal measure.
[By permission of the Chairman:]
Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers Association
Birmingham, United Kingdom, B16 9PN
August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw,
This letter is written on behalf of BRBMA (Ball and Roller Bearing
Manufacturers' Association) in response to the Subcommittee on Trade's
solicitation of written comments to the record from interested parties
concerning technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and potential
inclusion of pending bills in the miscellaneous trade package. The
Council of the BRBMA is made up of member companies engaged in the
manufacture of bearings and engine components, employing over 3000
people at facilities located throughout Great Britain. All members are
subsidiaries of parent Companies domiciled in Europe, Japan or the USA.
The BRBMA appreciates this opportunity to strongly urge the
Subcommittee to include H.R. 1121 in any miscellaneous trade bill, to
repeal 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1675c, the
Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``Byrd
amendment'').
I. Introduction
The CDSOA is an illegal subsidy awarded to a very small group of
American companies. While the law clearly benefits the chosen few, its
effect is overwhelmingly negative for most international and domestic
companies alike, to say nothing of the consuming public. Moreover, by
ignoring the World Trade Organisation (``WTO'') ruling that the law is
illegal, the U.S. government is undermining the rule of law and U.S.
interest here and abroad. It is therefore essential that H.R. 1121
which would repeat the Byrd amendment, be included in the miscellaneous
trade bill and, ultimately, be enacted into law.
II. Background
In October 2000, the Congress enacted the CDSOA as part of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001.\1\ The CDSOA was inserted
in to the Act without being reviewed by any committee having
jurisdiction over trade matters in either the House or the Senate.
President Clinton signed the bill on October 28, 2000, but protested
the inclusion of the CDSOA provision, recognising that it violated U.S
international trade obligations. The Byrd amendment has been highly
controversial since it was signed into law, and it is generally agreed
that it would not have withstood Congressional scrutiny had it been
considered and evaluated as separate legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-387,
114 Stat. 1549 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CDSOA revised the long-standing practice in the United States
whereby customs duties received from the importation of merchandise
covered by an antidumping or countervailing duty order are paid into
and remain a part of the United States Treasury. Under the CDSOA, the
domestic producers that filed and/or supported the original antidumping
or countervailing duty petitions are instead paid those monies
collected after U.S. Customs and Border Protection deposits them in the
U.S. Treasury's Offset Account. The CDSOA has resulted in more than $1
billion in antidumping and countervailing duties being dispersed by
Customs to affected domestic producers through 2004.\2\ More than half
the Byrd amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine companies, and
more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 companies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Http://www.citac.info/press/release/205/08_01.php
\3\ http://www.citac.info/press/release/205/08_01.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 9, 2001, nine members of the WTO--Australia, Brazil,
Chile, the European Community, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and
Thailand--requested consultations with the United States to contest the
legality of the Byrd amendment.\4\ Failure to resolve the dispute
during consultations led to the establishment of a Dispute Settlement
Body (``DSB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Request for Consultations, WT/DS217/1 (Jan. 9, 2001), available
at http://wto.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joined by Canada and Mexico, the complaining parties argued that
the CDSOA violated the GATT, the Antidumping Agreement (``AD
Agreement''), and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement
(``SCM Agreement'').\5\ After due consideration, the DSB held that the
CDSOA was inconsistent with articles 5.4, 18.1, and 18.4 of the AD
Agreement; articles 11.4, 32.1, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; articles
VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; and article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement.\6\ The panel therefore ordered the United States to conform
the CDSOA to these international agreements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Report of the Panel--Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act
of 2000, WT/DS217/R, P1.4 (Sept. 16, 2002), available at http://
www.wto.org/english/tratop_c/dispu?e/217_234r_a_e.pdf [hereinafter
Panel Report].
\6\ See id. At 8.1.
\7\ See id. At 8.4-8.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2002, the United States appealed the DSB's decision
to the Appellate Body for subsequent review, arguing that the CDSOA was
a permissible, specific relief action against dumping or subsidisation,
and was thus consistent with article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.\8\ In a January 16, 2003 report, the
Appellate Body affirmed the DSB's determination that the CDSOA violated
the United States' international obligations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See WTO Report of the Appellate Body--Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R (Jan. 16,
2003).
\9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DSB adopted the report of the panel as modified by the
Appellate Body on January 27, 2003.\10\ The deadline for the United
States to conform the CDSOA to WTO principles expired on December 27,
2003.\11\ After failing to do so, eight member nations in January 2004
petitioned the DSB to allow retaliation.\12\ In August of that year,
the arbitrator decided that retaliatory sanctions could be applied
equivalent to seventy-two percent of the disbursements made under the
CDSOA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Decision by the Arbitrator, United States--Continued Dumping
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000: Recourse to Arbitration by the United
States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU, ST/DS217/ARB (Aug. 31, 2004).
\11\ See id.
\12\ See id.
\13\ See id. at 5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The CDSOA is illegal
The first reason the CDSOA should be repealed is because it is
illegal. As explained above, the DSB has determined that the law is
inconsistent with WTO requirements. While a WTO decision is not binding
on a member state, the United States is undermining its role as an
international leader by continuing to ignore the WTO's ruling.
A fundamental principle of the global economy is that no national
entity has the ability to function independent of others. The influence
that national economies have on each other elicits the need for an
international trading framework. The GATT system was founded upon rules
of non-discrimination, trade liberalisation, fair competition, and
sovereignty.\14\ The WTO, in incorporating the provisions of GATT and
its amendments, functions as ``reciprocally and mutually advantageous
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other
barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in
international trade relations.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, pmbl., Oct. 30,
1947, 61 Stat. A-11, T.I.A.S. 1700, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.
\15\ GATT, pmbl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WTO refined specific provisions of the GATT with respect to
antidumping procedures in the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI
in order to further harmonize the international trade system. The
effort to preserve fairness is an essential element of the
Agreement.\16\ The United States, by not complying with the WTO
decision, is abandoning the principles of international trade which it
successfully advocated over the past half century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This is evidenced by the fact that duties ``shall remain in
force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping
which is causing injury.'' Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of
the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994, 2.1 (1994), available
at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The CDSOA is bad for the global economy
The Byrd amendment is fundamentally unfair to global competitors.
The CDSOA encourage U.S. producers to file and support trade actions
knowing they will be eligible for subsidies under the CDSOA if they do
so. There is also a legitimate fear that the United States' decision to
ignore the WTO ruling will lead to a domino effect, with other
countries adopting protectionist measures and ignoring any subsequent
WTO decisions.\17\ To the extent other countries adopt comparable
policies, not repealing this law may lead to further interference in
the ability of U.S. exporters to complete in the global trading system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Charkravarthi Raghavan, Three Disputes Sent to Panel, Third
World Network (July 24, 2001), at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/
disputes/htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The CDSOA is bad for the U.S. economy
The CDSOA should be repealed because it is likewise detrimental to
the economic welfare of the United States. It provides for the annual
payment of a significant unearned subsidy to a very few companies that,
far from assisting American manufacturing, actually undermines it.\18\
The CDSOA harms more American companies than it helps. It has a double
impact on American manufacturers who use products subject to
antidumping and countervailing duties. The imposition of dumping or
countervailing duties on imported products is designed to equalize the
so-called competitive advantage those products enjoy over comparable
products produced in the United States. This is the basic economic
rationale that underlies the antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
American importers, including those subsequently in receipt of
distributions, pay these duties. However the subsequent distribution
eliminates the equalisation factor, and a distinct competitive
advantage is shifted to CDSOA beneficiaries. This is not what the trade
laws are designed to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ http/:www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For U.S. companies within the field of a subject antidumping case,
the CDSOA also encourages inefficient production. Domestic firms that
have ceased producing the subject merchandise now have an incentive to
resume production and receive the CDSOA distribution. Under the law, a
firm can receive distributions only if it is in the business of
producing the good in question. That a company ceased production after
the duty was imposed suggests that it was not as competitive a producer
as the other firms in the market. A firm that returns to production
therefore, may inefficiently employ capital, labor, land, and other
resources that would be more productively employed in producing another
good or service.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, (Mar. 2, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms that have not ceased production, on the other hand, are
encouraged by the CDSOA to increase their output beyond the levels
signalled by market incentives. The Byrd amendment stipulates that
``the distributions shall be made on a pro rata basis based on new and
remaining qualifying expenditures,'' where qualifying expenditures
consist of expenditures on manufacturing facilities, equipment,
research and development, and just about anything else. Many of these
expenditures vary with the scale of production. The effect of the CDSOA
is to subsidize the perceived cost of production by domestic firms.\20\
This affects not only the companies involved in the dumping case. Such
firms increase their output beyond the point where the unsubsidized
cost to the firm, and thus to the economy, is balanced by the price.
Since the price or value is less than the cost to the economy of that
additional output, the economic welfare of the country is reduced.\21\
The overall net effect of the distributions mandated by the CDSOA is to
cause the firms receiving the distributions to produce output at
greater cost than it is worth, and to cause domestic firms that do not
receive the distributions to restrict output that would be worth more
than the cost of production. As a consequence, U.S. gross domestic
product and gross national product decline.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See id.
\21\ See id.
\22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CDSOA also significantly increases transaction costs. The
resources necessary to pursue a successful antidumping or
countervailing duty claim (i.e., costs of lawyers, economists, and
lobbyists) are transaction costs that add to the social cost of the
laws. By increasing the incentives for firms to file and pursue
antidumping petitions and by adding similar costs associated with
implementing the distribution of duty revenues, the CDSOA increases
those social costs.
Moreover, by increasing the likelihood of cases being filed and/or
maintained, the law increases the burden on the federal government.
These cases must be administered by the International Trade Commission
and the Department of Commerce, consuming time and resources. At the
same time, the CDSOA funnels money collected from the imposition of
duties from government coffers to the few companies that petition for
those duties. Such funnelling has totalled more than $1 billion to
date, with billions more waiting in the wings. Taking money from the
federal government, especially at a time of huge budget deficits, to
give it to a tiny segment of U.S. industry that is not entitled to it
consonant with U.S. international trading obligations, is hardly sound
fiscal policy. The actual cost of the provision is stated directly by
the Administration's FY2004 budget proposal:
The budget also proposes to repeal a Treasury-administered
provision in the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act, the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, that annually pays
approximately $230 million to complainants in antidumping/
countervailing duty cases. These corporate subsidies effectively
provide a significant ``double-dip'' benefit to industries that already
gain protection from the increased import prices provided by
countervailing tariffs. While the Administration does not believe that
these payments are inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations, repeal of
the provision would allow the funds to be directed to higher priority
uses.
Accordingly, not only would repeal of the CDSOA not cost the
Government anything, it would actually result in a net annual
Governmental benefit of approximately $230 million.
VI. U.S. Exporters are now exposed to WTO-sanctioned retaliation by
trading partners
Not only is the CDSOA, in itself, bad for the U.S. economy, but now
other countries are in the process of retaliating against the United
States for not adhering to the WTO ruling. From September 1, 2005,
Japan will impose a 15% duty on steel imports from the U.S., targeting
products such as ball bearings and airplane parts (which are produced
in the U.S. by various companies affiliated to our members). These
additional tariffs could amount to as much as $51 million. Japan's
action follows the European Union's and Canada's decision to impose
retaliatory duties on U.S.-made goods, which began on May 1, 2005. The
EU imposed a 15% duty on various types of paper, clothing fabrics,
footwear, and machinery--amounting to tariffs worth approximately $28
million, and Canada imposed like duties on cigarettes, oysters and live
swine, worth about $14 million. On August 18, 2005, Mexico began
imposing tariffs of 30% on dairy blends, 20% on wine, and 9% on chewing
gum and candy manufactured in the U.S.
VII. Conclusion
As detailed above, the BRBMA would submit that the CDSOA should be
repealed. By ignoring the WTO's ruling of illegality, the U.S.
Government is compromising the rule of law, as well as American
standing in global trade negotiations. Not only is the law illegal and
unfair to both international and domestic companies, the law is
economically unsound, resulting in immediate and significant damage to
the world and U.S. economies. Its continued application is also
exposing U.S. exporters to WTO-sanctioned retaliation by trading
partners. For these reasons, the BRBMA of Great Britain urges that H.R.
1121 be included in the miscellaneous trade package, and that it be
repealed immediately.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Yours sincerely,
Kate Hartigan
Managing Director
Moultonborough, New Hampshire 03254
August 30, 2005
I am writing in support of H.R. 1121 and a repeal of the so-called
Byrd Amendment.
The ``Byrd Amendment'' has been very disruptive of the part of the
construction supply business that I am in. We provide metal plate
connected wood trusses that allow for the safer, more efficient
construction of homes and other wood frame buildings.
Here in the Northeast part of the U.S., much of the lumber in the
grades required for efficient framing come from Canada. The
protectionist trade remedies that have been imposed on Canadian
softwood lumber have dramatically increased the cost of the materials
used in our products and therefore, hurt the consumers of our products,
who, for the most part, are homebuyers.
The added cost of this lumber has also produced a serious problem
in the ability of U.S. wood truss manufacturers to compete with the
Canadian manufacturers who are not subject to the Tariff that the Byrd
Amendment allowed to be imposed. This has caused the elimination of
jobs in the truss industry in the U.S.. Canadian truss manufacturers
are unfairly advantaged because the tariff on the lumber they use is
not applied. The tariff adds as much as 25 to 30% to the price on the
material that makes up about 50% of the product cost. American truss
manufacturers are being hurt by this situation, and, more importantly,
the cost of housing is increased.
This tariff has rewarded the petitioning companies to the point
where trade suits are encouraged, and the result is more protectionist
laws, not open trade that benefits the consumers.
The tariffs have also resulted in retaliation from other countries,
such as the duty Canada has announced it will impose on a number of
U.S. products, further hurting American workers. Punitive tariffs are
also being imposed by the E.U. on a number of U.S. made products.
The passage of this repeal will allow the market to return to
finding its own balance, a situation that benefits everyone.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to provide
information for you on this subject. I hope it is useful to you in
making an informed judgment on this important issue. I invite you to
contact me if I can I can be of any further help.
Sincerely,
Josiah H. Bartlett
Statement of Paula J. Prahl, Best Buy Co. Inc., Richfield, Minnesota
We want to take this opportunity to stress how vital it is that the
subcommittee support H.R. 1121, currently under consideration in the
miscellaneous trade bill. Best Buy is the number one consumer
electronics retailer in the nation and has substantial interest in the
outcome of this bill.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
When section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) became law, not many members of
Congress knew that the CDSOA (now known also as the ``Byrd amendment
'') had been added to the legislation until after the vote. All members
were denied the opportunity to understand its full ramifications
through committee hearings, public comment, or debate.
Since its passage, the CDSOA has proven to be one of the worst
pieces of trade legislation passed in recent memory. To no great
surprise for those who understood its deficiencies but had no
opportunity to comment on them, the CDSOA was also found to violate
U.S. obligations under the rules of international trade. In short, the
CDSOA a paradigm example of how efforts to circumvent the legislative
process invariably result in ill-considered and flawed bills, from
which flows a host of damaging consequences.
Best Buy applauds the introduction of H.R. 1121 to repeal the CDSOA
and its possible inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. Examination
of the impact and effect of the CDSOA since it went into effect present
compelling arguments supporting the conclusion that it is bad law and
should be repealed.
The CDSOA has funneled more than $1 billion (with
billions more in the offing) from the U.S. Treasury general fund--away
from spending on public education, housing, the courts, enforcement of
our environmental laws, national security, or other basic services of
the federal government--and into the pockets of companies that do not
need to account to the American taxpayer or anyone else what they
intend to do with the money. It is, in short, unmerited and unlawful
corporate welfare and a frightful waste of government money.
The World Trade Organization rightly ruled that the CDSOA
violates U.S. international trade obligations and has authorized
retaliation against U.S. exports for Congress' failure to repeal it by
the end of 2003.
CDSOA undermines the proper administration of the trade
remedies laws and harms average American consumers and the U.S.
economy. It does so by encouraging, and in effect subsidizing companies
to join in the filing of antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations they would otherwise have not supported, and against
products that would otherwise not have been included in the scope of
the investigations because they are not produced in the United States.
Finally, as long as the CDSOA remains on the books, it
will increasingly act to undermine U.S. global leadership on trade. The
ability of our trading partners to paint the United States as a
scofflaw for failure to repeal this law will deal a serious blow to
U.S. credibility in WTO negotiations and dispute settlement cases that
are of key importance to U.S. trade policy objectives and our economy.
These are just a few of the reasons why it is high time to repeal
the CDSOA, and why Best Buy strongly supports H.R. 1121 and encourage
its inclusion in the next miscellaneous tariff bill.
Best Buy appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on the
miscellaneous trade bill. We strongly support and urge the inclusion of
H.R. 1121.
British Embassy
Washington, DC 20008
September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw,
The British Government welcomes the opportunity to comment on the
inclusion of H.R. 1121, repealing Section 754 of the Tariff Act of
1930, into miscellaneous trade legislation to be considered by your
Committee. We attach the highest importance to maintaining and
promoting the normal business relations so critical to the prosperity
of our two countries. For these reasons the British Government hopes
that your Committee will take the views expressed in this letter into
account during its deliberations.
The vast majority of trade and business conducted between the
United Kingdom and the United States is undertaken under normal
circumstances and without impediment. However, such are the
complexities of international trade that occasionally issues do arise
that have an adverse affect on our ability to maintain normal trading
conditions. In general terms, when such difficulties arise both the
British Government and the European Commission will always prefer their
resolution through consultations if at all possible.
Regrettably, the Byrd Amendment has resulted in a World Trade
Organisation dispute and WTO-authorised retaliation addressing the
concerns of a number of members including the European Union. The
British Government hopes that your Committee will give positive
consideration to the provisions of H.R. 1121 as a means to resolve this
issue and so enable the E.U. to withdraw its retaliatory measures.
The U.K.'s Department of Trade and Industry has received comments
both from U.K. traders importing goods from the U.S. and from
subsidiaries or affiliates of U.S. owned companies emphasising that
their businesses are being damaged by the current situation. We are
aware too, that U.S. owned businesses operating in the U.K. have
written to your Committee expressing concerns about the adverse impact
on their business interests in the United States.
Issues arising from the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding are,
of course, a matter of E.U. rather than Member State competence. The
European Commission has already submitted comments in relation to H.R.
1121 on behalf of the E.U. and its Member States. The comments of the
British Government in this matter should be considered as being
complementary to those that you have already received from the European
Commission.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this important
matter.
David Manning
Ambassador
[By permission of the Chairman.]
Statement of Beatrice Khne and Sigrid Zirbel, Bundesverband der
Deutschen Industrie, e.V., Berlin, Germany
1. About BDI
The BDI (Federation of German Industries) is the umbrella
organization for a total of 35 industrial sector associations and
groups of associations in Germany. It represents the interests of more
than 100,000 enterprises,employing about 8 million people, in dealings
with national and international legislative and decision-making bodies.
2. Why BDI supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment
The World Trade Organizationn (WTO) has found that the
Byrd Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade. However, the
U.S. has ignored this ruling.
Failing to act on the WTOs ruling undermines the U.S.
government`s ability to take a leadership role on international trade
issues.
The Byrd amendment takes a dual toll on global companies:
first, foreign companies are forced to pay these duties. Second, due to
the Byrd Amendment, the duty payments are then transferred to
competitors from the U.S.
The Byrd Amendment encourages U.S. producer to file trade
actions, as they know full well that they will be eligible for
subsidies. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments have a
clear incentive to include more products within the scope of anti-
dumping or anti-subsidy cases, including products not even made in the
U.S.
Products that are not produced in the U.S. are still
included in the scope of products subject to Byrd Amendment duties--due
solely to the potential windfall of Byrd payments, which has totalled
more than $ 1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
The allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on
``qualified expenditures'', which are not monitored or audited by
Customs or any other government agency.
German industries rely on open trade for their export
sales. The Byrd Amendment makes exporting raw materials for U.S.
consuming industries and consumers more difficult and risky, increasing
their costs and uncertainty.
3. BDI Position
The intent of antidumping measures is to neutralize any detrimental
effects of dumping. The Byrd Amendment passes funds from importers to
complaining parties, which amounts to overcompensation (dumping tariffs
on imports and financial transfer to complaining companies). The Byrd
Amendment encourages the use of the antidumping instrument and has
therefore been recognized as clearly in violation of WTO rules. The
U.S. should bring its antidumping laws into WTO compliance as soon as
possible and repeal the Byrd Amendment.
Buzzi Unicem USA Inc.
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18017
August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am
writing on behalf of Buzzi Unicem USA and its 1,600 employees to
express our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty
Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can
by no means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to
existing law.
Buzzi Unicem USA is the fourth largest cement company in the U.S.
Headquartered in Bethlehem, PA, we operate 10 cement plants located in
the states of Missouri, Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, Louisiana,
Illinois, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. In addition to our plants, we also
operate 26 cement terminals with many located in the Texas, Louisiana,
Tennessee and Oklahoma area.
In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer,
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to
create new jobs.
Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004,
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha
Round.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
David A. Nepereny
President and CEO
Michael Berlin
Senior Vice President, Marketing, Promotion and Government Affairs
William Humenuk
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Bruce Keim
Senior Vice President, Technical Services
Statement of Allen Erickson, Cal-Asia Truss, Concord, California
The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
Cal-Asia Truss produces structural building components--metal-plate
connected wood trusses and open-web floor joists--which are made
primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect,
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S.
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to
these petitioning companies.
Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate
committees of Congress.
The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine,
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported
from the U.S.
Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121,
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for
further information.
California Minnesota Honey Farms
Eagle Bend, Minnesota 56446
August 28, 2005
My name is Jeff Anderson; I operate a migratory beekeeping
operation California Minnesota Honey Farms based in Oakdale California
and Eagle Bend Minnesota. My operation is or was, geared primarily
toward honey production. Unfair competition primarily from China has
severely cut into domestic honey pricing. Anti dumping followed by the
Byrd Amendment have helped domestic honey prices attain workable
levels.
I am writing because of my concerns with the 2005 Miscellaneous
Tariff Bill. There are two very troubling portions; H.R. 1121 and H.R.
2473.
I am strongly opposed to HR 1121 because it will repeal the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. (CDSOA) CDSOA, The
Byrd Amendment was responsible for getting and keeping domestic honey
prices at a level which kept my beekeeping operation solvent. With 2003
through early 2004 honey prices, the roughly 350,000 lbs I produce
grossed about $525,000, if prices fall to Chinese levels that same crop
will gross $168,000. In 2004 my tax return showed about $25,000
`profit'. DO THE MATH; I can not compete against cheap Chinese honey
produced by `slave labor'. Communist economies are driven by government
greed, not real life cost of doing business. If a product cost to much
to produce simply pay your `slaves' less to produce it; undercut your
competition until they cease to exist; then raise the price to a
profitable levels. My operation will cease to exist if the Byrd
Amendment is repealed, and honey prices fall to and stay at `Chinese'
levels.
I am also opposed to HR2473. HR2473 will `alter' the calculation
for `all others' and will significantly reduce duties collected. The
effect will be more financial incentive for the Chinese to import
cheap, substandard honey.
The proposed repeals amount to `outsourcing'. `Outsourcing' honey
will put U.S. beekeepers out of business. Putting U.S. beekeepers out
of business will have a HUGE ripple effect. Honeybees are responsible
for a large portion of food produced. There is already a large outcry
from crop growers that require insect pollination to set their crops.
Honeybees are in short supply. Putting the pollinator's `managers' out
of business by trying to save consumers a few pennies in retail honey
prices is folly. It is not possible to `outsource' pollination!!! The
pennies saved will cost thousands in the long run. Crop shortfalls will
cause food prices to skyrocket.
PLEASE!!! Apply some uncommon sense; do not repeal CDSOA, VOTE NOT
ON (H.R. 1121). PLEASE!!! Do not alter the duties collected; VOTE NO ON
(HR 2473).
Thanks for you consideration and actions in this matter.
Sincerely
Jeff Anderson
Owner and operator
California Cut Flower Commission
Watsonville, California 95077
September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. which
requested comments for the record regarding proposed bills concerning
``technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty
suspension proposals.'' A list of these miscellaneous trade bills is
provided in the Advisory. This letter is the California Cut Flower
Commission's response to the Subcommittee's request.
The California Cut Flower Commission (CCFC) represents over 300 cut
flower growers in the state of California. These growers produce
approximately 70% of the cut flowers grown in the United States.
In particular, the CCFC is concerned about, and opposes, two bills;
H.R. 1121, and H.R. 2473. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section 754
of the Tariff Act of 1930'' and H.R. 2473 is ``A bill to amend the
Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others rate in
antidumping cases.'' These bills are controversial and should be
deleted from the final miscellaneous trade bill.
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Fair Trade:
As the organization that represents the vast majority of cut flower
producers in California, the CCFC is an unwavering supporter of strong
trade law remedies. Effective and useable trade remedy laws are
important tools to maintaining a level playing field for our industry
in particular and more broadly for U.S. agricultural producers.
The CCFC believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws in
this bill or elsewhere, should be rejected. Absent strong trade remedy
laws, it will be harder for U.S. companies and workers to compete
fairly with subsidized and dumped imports. And, without effective and
useable trade remedy laws on the books; market opening trade policies
will lose the support of the American people.
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will undermine trade remedy laws in the
ways detailed below. These bills are the type of controversial measures
should not be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:
This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S.
government to eligible domestic industries found to have been injured
by dumped or subsidized imports.
CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our
foreign competitors do not cease. CDSOA distributes money only when
dumping and subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and
subsidization cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
Concerns about H.R. 2473:
This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact,
it would make a significant and harmful change to the antidumping law
by making it exceeding difficult in a large number of cases for the
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for
non-investigated exporters.
The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual
exporters that were investigated.
Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data.
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are
not uncommon.
``Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available,
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many case, there would be
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
In substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law.
H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in carrying out its
statutory responsibilities to administer the antidumping law.
A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO Panel or
Appellate Body Decisions
Another reason to delete H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from a
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are legislation designed
to change U.S. law in response to controversial decisions by WTO
dispute panels and Appellate Body. A non-controversial miscellaneous
trade bill is not the appropriate vehicle to make such legislative
changes to trade remedy laws.
These bills clearly respond to specific cases where WTO panels and
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach.
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S.
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from
the text of the WTO Agreements.
In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just
that in the Doha Round negotiations. Both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, if
legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
In conclusion, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 need to be expeditiously
removed from the miscellaneous trade bill package. There is no reason
to jeopardize the passage of the hundreds of other helpful and non-
controversial bills contained in the package.
Lee Murphy
President/CEO
California Portland Cement Company
Glendora, California 91741
September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am
writing on behalf of California Portland Cement Company and its
approximately 1000 employees to express our strong opposition to the
inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly
controversial bill that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no means be fairly described as a
``technical correction'' to existing law.
California Portland Cement Company (CPCC) was established in 1891
and is headquartered in Glendora, California. CPCC operates three
cement plants located in California and Arizona. We also operate 18
ready-mix concrete and concrete products plants in those two states.
In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer,
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to
create new jobs.
Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004,
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha
Round.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
James A. Repman
President and Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Embassy
Washington, DC 20001
September 1, 2005
Mr. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Shaw,
In commenting on the proposed contents of the miscellaneous trade
legislation, I wish to express the strong support of the Government of
Canada for HR 1121, the bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), also known as the ``Byrd
Amendment''. I have termed CDSOA a type of bounty on trade, because it
distributes anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties collected to the firms
that supported the trade remedy action. It was reviewed by the World
Trade Organization (WTO) and, in January 2003, determined to be
inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Agreements governing anti-
dumping and countervailing duties. When the U.S. failed to bring itself
into compliance, Canada and seven other co-complainants were authorized
by the WTO to impose retaliation.
As a result, from May 1, 2005, various U.S. goods are subject to
retaliatory duties, pending repeal of the Byrd Amendment. WTO members
who have taken that decision, including Canada, and others who are
readying to do so, account for up to 71% of total U.S. exports and 64%
of total U.S. imports.
``The longer Congress waits to repeal Byrd, the more American
consumers and exporters will have to pay'', wrote the Wall Street
Journal earlier this month. In a March 2004 report, the Congressional
Budget Office criticized the Byrd Amendment for subsidizing the output
of some U.S. firms at the expense of others, as well as inciting the
initiation and discouraging the settlement of trade remedy cases. That
CDSOA does not make economic sense has been shown by domestic
observers. More recently, on August 22, 2005, the Congressional
Research Service of The Library of Congress released a report on the
Byrd Amendment, in which it notes that the repeal of the Amendment''. .
. would do nothing to affect other U.S. AD or CVD laws, procedures or
actions, and domestic industries would continue to benefits from these
measures''. This conclusion supports the WTO finding that the Byrd
Amendment is an unjustified double remedy not provided for in the WTO.
In their most recent representation to the U.S. Administration, the
eight co-complainants made the further point that ``the dispute
settlement system is a fundamental pillar of the WTO in providing
security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.'' The
failure by the United States, one of the world's leading trading
nations, to comply with its WTO obligations, hurts the credibility of
the system and the interests of its members, the United States
included. Canada is aware that certain supporters of the Byrd Amendment
have pressed for the negotiation of a Byrd-like provision in current
WTO rules negotiations. Canada opposes the consideration of this issue
in the negotiating process and reiterates that the repeal of the Byrd
Amendment is the only alternative to WTO-sanctioned retaliation. The
Canadian Government urges prompt enactment of HR 1121.
Frank McKenna
Ambassador
Carpenter Technology Corporation
Reading, Pennsylvania 19612
August 29, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC
Dear Committee on Ways and Means:
Carpenter Technology Corporation is an integrated specialty steel
manufacturer of stainless steel bar, wire, rod and billet products with
manufacturing locations in Reading, PA; Hartsville, SC; and Orangeburg,
SC. We employ approximately 2,300 individuals across these three
locations.
Carpenter Technology wants to voice its strong opposition to H.R.
1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill which calls for the repeal of the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). Secondly,
Carpenter Technology also strongly opposes H.R. 2473, which alters the
calculation of the ``all others'' rate in AD/CVD cases, thereby
significantly reducing the amount of duties collected and distributed
under the CDSOA.
The distribution of funds Carpenter Technology received under CDSOA
has created opportunities to reinvest in our operations and marketing.
Carpenter has a strong history of making capital investments in order
to maintain and improve its production plants and equipment. The CDSOA
funds have been very beneficial in that regard. Over the past five
years since the CDSOA went into effect, the total amount of Carpenter's
capital investments
has been enhanced significantly by the total amount received under
the CDSOA. We are committed to continuing to improve our world
competitive position in specialty steels and metals, and the CDSOA
funds support that objective by restoring revenues that would have
otherwise been lost as a result of foreign unfair trade practices.
Carpenter Technology expects Congress will actively support
manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by opposing repeal of the CDSOA and by
supporting the U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as
determined by Congress. Congress must fight efforts to undermine the
CDSOA in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiations in the
current multilateral Doha Round, not repealing the Byrd Amendment
(CDSOA), is the most effective way to resolve the WTO dispute. It was
Congress who requested that our trade negotiators in the ongoing Doha
Round push for revision of the WTO agreements so that CDSOA and similar
programs relating to individual countries' use of AD/CVD duties will be
expressly accepted as WTO consistent.
Sincerely,
William A. Wellock
Manager--Consolidated Planning
Cattle Producers of Washington
Soap Lake, Washington 98851
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) is submitting these
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments
for the record from all parties interested in technical corrections to
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. CPoW is a
non-profit state cattlemen's organization dedicated to promoting the
health and long term stability of independent producers in Washington
State. Being a border state, international trade policies greatly
affect the profitability and viability of our state's third largest
commodity industry.
CPoW welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bills being
considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous package, in particular
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,''
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S.
trade remedy laws. CPoW supports maintaining strong and effective trade
laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for
Washington State ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as
Washington State manufacturers and workers. In a fair market, U.S.
producers are second to none. When foreign competitors flood the U.S.
market with dumped and subsidized goods, however, the trade laws must
be in place to provide a remedy for injury caused by unfairly traded
imports. CPoW believes it would be inappropriate to use the
miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, but that will be the
effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in the package.
H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong
opposition. Thus, CPoW believes that H.R. 1121 should not be included
in the miscellaneous trade bill.
H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate,
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters.
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some
``facts available'' data.
H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases,
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
CPoW is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be
efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate Body
of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill
is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions and
enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and the
Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and the
Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on CDSOA
and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new obligations
that the United States never agreed to and which are not found in the
text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has previously
directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of these disputes
at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in the Doha Round
rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete that process,
which ought to result in a correction of the problems created by panel
and Appellate Body overreaching.
Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the
miscellaneous trade package.
Again, CPoW appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments
and would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into account CPoW's
views on the three bills discussed above.
Respectfully submitted,
Chad Henneman
Executive Director
Censea Inc.
Northfield, Illinois 60093
August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of Censea Inc., I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as
the Byrd Amendment. Our Company strongly supports this legislation's
inclusion in the trade bill.
Our Company has been in business for over 50 years and is primarily
an importer of seafood from throughout the world. We deal in many third
world countries where seafood exports provide a critical piece of both
the local and national economies. It has always been a source of pride
to me that we can assist those people as they struggle to develop their
economies and participate in worldwide free trade. Until the recent
shrimp action was brought it was easy for me to expound on benefits of
an economy and free trade. The Byrd Amendment appears to these people
as protectionism at its worst and makes them question if the United
States truly believes in free trade or only mouths the words.
We strongly believe that the group of domestic seafood processors
that filed an antidumping petition with the Commerce Department and the
U.S. International Trade Commission against imported shrimp from six
countries was primarily motivated by the prospect of receiving Byrd
money. In fact, law firms representing the plaintiffs used flyers
marketing the prospect of Byrd monies to recruit petitioners for the
shrimp case. When litigation is a better option then improving and
changing your business, there is something seriously wrong with our
system. As an industry we have encouraged the domestic producers to
adjust their business to the changing world market conditions over the
last twenty years. These pleas unfortunately fell on deaf ears.
Byrd payments were so prominent in the motivation for this case
that when the domestic shrimp processors moved to have fresh shrimp
removed from the scope of the investigation, shrimp producers (the
fisherman) launched a lawsuit against the processors to protect their
potential entitlement to Byrd monies.
We also believe that the domestic shrimpers' opposition to the
current ITC Changed Circumstance Investigation for shrimp imports from
Thailand and India, initiated by the ITC because of the devastation
caused by the December 2004 Tsunami, is based on the fear of losing
Byrd monies and shows a total lack of sympathy for the plight of these
individuals.
Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on shrimp imports
from Brazil,
China, Ecuador, India, Thailand and Vietnam, importers must pay the
duties
but, also face the unfair situation to see these funds transferred
to the domestic industry as a reward for filing their lawsuit. U.S.
businesses are sent the wrong message from our government: that trade
protectionism makes a better business plan than modernization and that
it is good business to litigate for profit.
The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few companies
that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually undermines
it. More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only
nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only
44 companies nationwide.
U.S. producers in a wide variety of sectors are now filing trade
actions because they know they will be eligible for Byrd money. The
Byrd Amendment adds additional punitive damage-like incentives to file
cases, in that a victory enriches the filer beyond simply ``leveling
the playing field.''
The Byrd Amendment is simply bad policy. The members of the
domestic
shrimp industry who filed the trade petition will not be required
to use Byrd monies that they receive to take the steps necessary to
modernize or improve their competitiveness. Instead, they can count on
receiving a government handout from shrimp imports without doing
anything to improve their competitive position.
The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the
appropriate
committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to American
companies. We request that you include H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous
trade bill and appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important
issue.
Jeffery A. Stern
Vice President
Century Furniture
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press
Release, Century Furniture and its 1200 employees strongly oppose H.R.
1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to maintain effective
remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress should not treat its
revocation as some sort of ``technical correction.''
Century Furniture is headquartered in Hickory, North Carolina and
operates 7 furniture manufacturing facilities in Catawba County.
Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was
intended
We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump,
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs!
One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial
issue in the Doha Round.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Maricich
President and CEO
Robert K. Johnson
Senior Vice President of Administration
R. Terry Jennings
Plant Manager
Eric Schenk
Chief Operating Officer
James I. Johnson
Plant Manager
Statement of Robert John Becht, Chambers Truss Inc., Fort Pierce,
Florida
The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
My company produces structural building components--metal-plate
connected wood trusses, wall panels and open-web floor joists--which
are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect,
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S.
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to
these petitioning companies.
Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate
committees of Congress/
The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine,
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported
from the U.S.
Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121,
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for
further information.
City Furniture
Tamarac, Florida 33321
August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of City Furniture, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as
the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this legislation's
inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, City Furniture has over
1,500 associates with annual sales over $300 million. Since our
inception in 1971, we have established ourselves as a leader in the
Furniture Retailing Industry, not only in South Florida, but in the
nation. City Furniture offers excellent quality home furnishings--from
the dining room to the bedroom to the home office--at outstanding
values.
To achieve these values for families to enjoy, City Furniture
sources products domestically and globally. To provide our customers
with the quality and values they want, we source domestically what is
best made in the USA, and source globally what is best made elsewhere.
Though we love to sell ``Made in the USA'' (in fact, we own a factory
in Mississippi that makes our Kevin Charles Fine Upholstery line),
imported products sometimes provide our customers with styles and
values they prefer.
In 2003, as you know, a group of domestic furniture manufacturers
worked to restrict consumer access to affordable high quality wooden
bedroom furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition against furniture
from China with the Commerce Department and the International Trade
Commission. We believe that some of these manufacturers filed the
petition in order to line up to receive millions of dollars in special
interest payments through the Byrd Amendment. I personally appreciate
your past assistance and, once again, ask for your help.
Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden
bedroom furniture, City Furniture not only must pay the duties, but
also see the monies in the future transferred to some of the same
manufacturers that petitioned for the duties. These duties also,
unfortunately, raise prices for our consumers, and cause them to buy
less furniture.
The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44
companies nationwide.
U.S. producers file trade actions because they know that they will
be eligible for Byrd money. In this sense, the Byrd Amendment adds
additional ``punitive damage-like'' incentives to file cases in that a
victory enriches the filer beyond simply making them whole/leveling the
playing field. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments also
have a clear incentive to include more products within the scope of
anti-dumping cases, including products not even made in the U.S., and
to oppose ever eliminating any duty for fear of losing the Byrd money.
Additionally, because the duties on the imported products are funneled
to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment creates a disincentive
to produce the product subject to the duty in the U.S. Indeed, Byrd
recipients can import the products from China themselves and be
insulated from antidumping duties.
The Byrd Amendment is simply bad domestic policy. The furniture
manufacturers who filed the trade petition will not be required to use
the Byrd money they receive for job retraining or to improve their
competitiveness. Instead, these companies can sit back and receive a
government handout on every bedroom product imported into this country
that goes right into their bottom-line. City Furniture's customers
across Florida depend on having access to quality furniture for their
homes at a reasonable price. We ask that the Trade Subcommittee
consider the needs of retailers who import products, our associates,
and our customers. The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration
by the appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen
injury to American companies.
As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R.
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill and once again applaud you for
your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Keith Koenig
President
Statement of Barry Cullen, Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports
This statement reflects the views of the Coalition for Fair Lumber
Imports (the ``Coalition''), an alliance of large and small lumber
producers from around the country, joined by hundreds of thousands of
their employees, and tens of thousands of woodland owners. We
appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement in anticipation of
the Subcommittee's review of the proposed technical corrections to U.S.
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
The Coalition is united in opposition to the subsidization of
Canadian lumber that has been found to be dumped into the U.S. market.
These unfair trade practices by the Canadian government and lumber
industry have caused significant hardship in the U.S. lumber industry
and continue to threaten domestic lumber companies, their workers and
communities, as well as thousands of timberland owners across this
nation. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), or Byrd
Amendment, is an essential component to remedy the injurious effects of
unfair trade practices. The Coalition opposes the inclusion of H.R.
1121--a bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, or more
commonly known as the CDSOA--in the technical corrections and duty
suspension bill package.
The U.S. Department of Commerce has repeatedly found that Canadian
lumber is heavily subsidized and dumped into the U.S. market. These
unfair trade practices stem from an estimated annual $3 to $3.5 billion
U.S. dollar subsidy program instituted by Canadian provincial
governments to maintain artificially high employment and production
levels in their lumber industry. The subsidy program is possible
because the Canadian provinces own the vast bulk of merchantable timber
in Canada. The government price of Canadian timber is only a fraction
of the market-determined price of identical timber in U.S. border
regions. Canadian companies unload their excess production into the
U.S. market at a cost of thousands of good-paying American jobs.
Through subsidies and policies that induce uneconomical manufacturing,
the provinces export production cutbacks, mill closures and job losses
to the United States.
Despite having been repeatedly found to be dumping lumber into the
U.S. market by the Department of Commerce, Canadian manufacturers are
continuing to engage in this unfair trade practice. Furthermore,
Canadian provinces are refusing to stop heavily subsidizing their
lumber industry. The CDSOA is specifically designed to offset the
injurious effects of repeat violators of the antidumping and
countervailing duty laws. The law provides crucial support to
communities that have been decimated by such unfair trade practices,
and is therefore essential to a broad range of manufacturing,
agricultural, and fisheries industries across the United States.
The CDSOA is a pivotal component of the U.S. trade laws enforcement
mechanism. It is designed to level the playing field for U.S.
manufacturers who have been, or are threatened to be, injured by unfair
trade practices. Congress must not repeal this essential law, either in
the technical corrections and duty suspension bill package, or in any
other legislation.
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws
Washington, DC 20007
September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing on behalf of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws
(CSUSTL) to express the Committee's strong opposition to inclusion of
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in the package of miscellaneous tariff bills.
CSUSTL believes that miscellaneous tariff legislation, which has
traditionally included duty suspension bills and minor technical
corrections, is decidedly not the appropriate vehicle for addressing
changes in our trade laws stemming from adverse WTO panel and Appellate
Body decisions.
CSUSTL is an ad hoc coalition with a broad-based membership
comprised of U.S. companies, trade associations, agricultural
producers, labor organizations, and law firms. CSUSTL's membership
represents a cross-section of the American economy and spans most major
sectors including manufacturing, technology, agriculture, mining,
lumber, consumer products, energy, and services. CSUSTL supports the
maintenance of strong and effective trade laws and believes that the
changes to U.S. trade laws that would occur as a result of the repeal
of the CDSOA provision (H.R. 1121) and the amendment of the method for
calculating ``all other rates'' in antidumping proceedings (H.R. 2473)
would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the trade remedy laws
for the companies and workers we represent.
Congress has already made clear its direction that the
Administration pursue negotiations within the Doha Development Round to
resolve these issues, including clear language in the Trade Promotion
Authority of the Trade Act of 2002, as well as the Consolidated
Appropriations Bills in 2004 and 2005. The Administration itself has
commented that such overreaching WTO decisions have created obligations
that the U.S. has never agreed to in any prior WTO negotiation. U.S.
negotiators should pursue the negotiations option to clarify the WTO-
compatibility of U.S. practice with respect to distribution of AD and
CVD duties and with respect to the calculation of the ``all others
rate''.
This approach has strong Congressional support on both sides of the
aisle. Consequently, the inclusion of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in a
package of tariff bills is extremely controversial. They simply have no
place in a bill in which debate is limited and which has typically been
passed under suspension of the rules.
Sincerely,
David A. Hartquist
Executive Director
[By permission of the Chairman:]
Confederation of British Industry
London, United Kingdom WC1A 1DU
September 2, 2005
The Hon E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Sub Committee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longsworth HOB
Washington DC 20515
Dear Mr Chairman,
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) is the United Kingdom's
leading business organisation. It represents over 240,000 companies of
all sizes and from all sectors of the British business community that
together employ over one third of the private sector workforce. As you
know well, UK companies are the largest providers of foreign direct
investment in the U.S. and U.S. companies are the largest providers of
foreign direct investment in the UK. Together with our significant
trading partnership, this underlines the crucial importance of the
U.K.-U.S. economic relationship.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the intention to include
HR 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. CBI strongly supports HR 1121,
which would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act,
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Byrd Amendment).
CBI believes that repeal is necessary for the following reasons:
business gets caught in the crossfire of trade disputes.
Retaliatory action, when authorised by the WTO and implemented, can
disrupt trade. It often affects sectors with little or no relevance to
the original complaint. We are aware of CBI member companies, including
U.S. subsidiaries in the UK, that have been disadvantaged by EU
retaliatory action through the imposition of additional customs duties
on imports from the U.S.
we are on record as having opposed the introduction of
the Byrd Amendment as being contrary to WTO rules and because of the
potential it has to distort the market.
practice has shown that the Byrd Amendment has
established a double hit on companies in anti-dumping or countervailing
duty cases. In addition to the duties collected in such instances,
which are part of legitimate trade policy remedies, the monies are then
distributed to the companies that brought the actions. This gives an
additional benefit to those complainant companies which is, in effect,
an anti-competitive subsidy.
British business is a strong supporter of the WTO and the
multilateral rules-based system. We believe that WTO rulings should be
adhered to in order to avoid retaliatory action. In addition, it is
vital that WTO members conclude on ambitious Doha Development Agenda
(DDA) negotiation in 2006. The strong signal from the U.S. Congress
that passage of HR 1121 would send should assist progress in these
negotiations.
The CBI hopes that the Sub-Committee will favourably report out HR
1121 and that the U.S. Congress will then act swiftly to resolve this
trade dispute. By doing so, we believe it will contribute to an
enhanced transatlantic relationship and to positive benefits in
emphasising U.S. leadership at the WTO.
As always, CBI would be happy to provide more information to assist
the Sub-Committee if required.
Yours sincerely,
Gary J Campkin
Head, International Group
[By permission of the Chairman.]
The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU
Brussels, Belgium
September 1, 2005
Dear Members of the Trade Sub-Committee of the Ways and Means
Committee,
The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU, CIAA,
is the voice of the European food and drink industry. Our industry with
an annual turnover of approximately 800 billion euro, is a major
employer and exporter. The United States has been for many years been
the main export destination for many EU food and drink products and in
2004, EU imports of U.S. food and drink products were worth 3 billion
euro out of a total 40 billion.
CIAA closely monitored the implementation of the U.S. Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act in October 2000, which diverts proceeds
from anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases to U.S. companies that
file a trade case. Since then, many European food and drink companies--
and other WTO member countries whose industries export to the United
States--feared not only market distortions by legal proceedings that
subsidize a small number of companies, but more importantly a tendency
to undermine the international rules-based system of the WTO.
A WTO panel was asked for clarification and the EU, together with
eight other WTO members, welcomed the Appellate Body report on 27
January 2003, which clearly rejected the Byrd Amendment. However, CIAA
regrets that no bill has passed the U.S. Congress to repeal the illegal
practice in order to implement the ruling and comply with WTO rules. In
the meantime, the EU imposed retaliatory measures. Although CIAA
understands the political importance of retaliatory policies as imposed
by the European Union on 1 May 2005 it can only be seen as a second-
best and intermediate measure.
In response to your invitation for submission of written comments,
CIAA wishes to express strong support to the repeal of the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act because,
the Byrd Amendment is a clear breach of the WTO agreement
and contributes to undermine the U.S. government leadership on
international trade issues.
it encourages U.S. producers to file WTO cases with the
only objective to receive money from these legal proceedings which is
equivalent to a subsidy;
EU exports have become difficult for products affected by
the offset payments under the Byrd Amendment and has threatened exports
of certain food products (for example pasta);
retaliatory sanctions have increased companies' costs for
importing sweet corn from the U.S. by 15 %. Should these sanctions be
maintained, companies may look to secure alternative sources of supply.
CIAA members support an international rules-based trading system
for import and export that is predictable, consistent and stable, and
that relies on competition and market forces and not on unilateral
trade actions.
Yours faithfully,
Daniela Israelachwili
Director General
Consumers for World Trade
Washington, D.C., 20036
August 11, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: 202-225-8398
Dear Chairman Shaw,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Consumers for World Trade
(CWT) and our members, I would like to express our strong support for
the inclusion of H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the Continued Dumping
and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), in the miscellaneous trade bill.
CWT is a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization,
established in 1978 to promote consumer interests in international
trade and to raise public awareness of the benefits of an open,
multilateral trading system. CWT is the only consumer group in America
whose sole mission is to educate, advocate and mobilize consumers to
support liberal trade policies.
We support repeal of the CDSOA (aka ``Byrd Amendment'') because:
American consumers pay twice for many products as a
result of the Byrd Amendment. They pay the increased price of the
product that results from the imposition of extra duties on imports,
and as taxpayers they pay a select few companies duty revenues that
should be going into the general treasury of the United States to fund
our Federal budget. This is a significant cost--over a billion dollars
to date, and potentially many billions more in the future if the Byrd
Amendment is not repealed.
The Byrd Amendment forces American companies that depend
on imported products--from direct importers to processors to
wholesalers and retailers--, to subsidize those companies that
participated in anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions.
Companies that choose not to participate in such cases are penalized
essentially because they choose not to seek protection.
The Byrd Amendment money goes to a very small number of
companies. More than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to
only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to
only forty-four companies. This is the worst kind of corporate welfare
because it rewards a few companies, and thus distorts the competitive
structure in an entire sector, in favor of companies who rely on
protection.
The Byrd Amendment places no realistic or practical
restrictions on the use of the government subsidies it authorizes.
Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on ``qualified
expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by Customs or any
government agency. It is simply additional cash for which the
recipients do not have to account once they have been paid.
The possibility of receiving Byrd payments creates a
powerful incentive for filing antidumping and countervailing duty
cases. U.S. companies are encouraged to file trade actions knowing full
well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S. companies in line
to receive these payments have a clear incentive to include more
products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including products not
even made in the U.S.
The United States relies on an open global trading system
for our export sales and our purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment
undermines the rules-based trading system, invites our trading partners
to close parts of their markets to U.S. exports in retaliation, and
increases the cost of imported inputs under antidumping orders.
The Byrd Amendment is a blatant WTO violation, and U.S.
trading partners are now imposing or have announced they will impose
hundreds of millions of dollars in retaliatory duties on U.S. exports.
The EU and Canada have already imposed sanctions on our exports, Japan
has announced a target product list, and other plaintiff countries are
about to do so as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal this
WTO-illegal measure.
Given the serious domestic economic and international trade
problems created by the Byrd Amendment, CWT urges all members of the
Trade Subcommittee to support inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the
miscellaneous tariff bill. This corporate entitlement program is simply
bad policy and must be repealed before it does further damage to the
pocketbooks of U.S. consumers. It is essential that it be repealed.
Yours truly,
Maureen Smith
President
Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition
Washington, DC 20036
August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing on behalf of the Consuming Industries Trade Action
Coalition (``CITAC'') in response to the Subcommittee's request for
comments on pending miscellaneous tariff and trade legislation (Trade
Subcommittee Press Release, July 25, 2005). CITAC is a coalition of
companies and trade associations that supports reform of trade laws and
policies to take account of the interests of consuming industries in
America.
CITAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on HR 1121,
legislation that would repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act,'' commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. We strongly support
the inclusion of the Byrd Amendment repeal bill in the Chairman's Mark
of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. For the reasons stated in this
letter, the Byrd Amendment should be repealed as quickly as possible.
This law, in effect since October 2000, has put more than a billion
taxpayer dollars in the pockets of a very small number of corporations,
but has not served a larger public policy purpose. It is bad policy
because it does not require any recipient to perform any worthwhile
activity and little if any worthwhile activity has resulted from the
payment of these sums of money.
In addition, repeal of the Byrd Amendment is required because the
World Trade Organization (``WTO'') correctly found the Byrd Amendment
inconsistent with U.S. international obligations. Thus, repeal of the
Byrd Amendment is both good public policy for the vast majority of U.S.
manufacturers and is essential for the United States to comply with its
obligations and to maintain its position of leadership on trade matters
in the WTO. Repeal is a win-win proposition for the United States.
Many consuming industries rely on imports of raw materials or
components to maintain global competitiveness. The Byrd Amendment
provides a double hit on importers of products subject to antidumping
and countervailing duties. Importers must pay these duties which,
because of the ``retrospective'' system of duty collection, are
uncertain in amount; the risk of high duties discourages imports
whether or not they are fairly traded and thereby harms consumers. In
addition, foreign producers must see these duties transferred to their
U.S. competitors. Thus, U.S. consuming industries are hurt twice: first
by the uncertain amount of duties discouraging imports, and second by
the subsidy to competitors, further discouraging imports. Additionally,
these duties trickle down to the average American consumer and often
cause them to purchase fewer products. The net result is that imports
of vital raw materials slow, and economic activity and jobs march
overseas, putting more Americans out of work.
Byrd Amendment recipients--naturally interested in maintaining
their cash flow--argue that enriching them serves a larger public
interest. We strongly disagree, for the following reasons:
Despite some protestations to the contrary, the Byrd Amendment
creates a clear incentive to file antidumping and countervailing duty
cases. We have seen this in the five years since the law was passed:
cases that were or are marginal in their marketplace effects, such as
shrimp, color TVs and wooden bedroom furniture have been filed solely
or largely to cash in on Byrd Amendment distributions. U.S. companies
in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to include
more products within the scope of cases, including products not even
made in the United States. Consumers see cases filed because of the
promise of Byrd money (such as the infamous shrimp case). Other cases
include products not produced here, such as certain antifriction
bearings (e.g., certain metric sizes and metallurgical requirements);
and steel wire rod for ``cold-heading'' and manufacture of wire for
tire cord.
We reject the idea that comparing the number of petitions filed
before and after the Byrd Amendment was passed is probative of whether
the law has created an incentive to file. The prospect of money creates
the incentive; that cannot be denied. Obviously, the number of
petitions filed before and after October 2000 was determined by
prevailing economic conditions. If the number of petitions went down,
it was not because of the Byrd Amendment, but despite it. We urge the
Subcommittee similarly to reject the Byrd proponents' specious
argument.
Despite its label as the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset
Act,'' the law seems to do little to reduce the level of dumping
margins. These margins, calculated by the Commerce Department, are
based on information provided long after importations occur, frequently
laced with ``facts available'' not based on the respondent's own
information. If anything, the practices of the Department of Commerce
have become more draconian and anti-consumer since the Byrd Amendment
was passed.
Byrd Amendment funds go to a select few companies. In 2004, more
than half of the $284 million in distributions went to just nine
companies. In both 2002 and 2003, more than half the money went to just
two companies. It is simply not credible that distributions to such a
narrow group of beneficiaries could make any difference to the U.S.
manufacturing economy.
Byrd Amendment distributions treat different U.S. producers
differently, depending upon whether they supported a petition or not.
In the candle market, for example, a small number of companies receive
huge windfalls from the Byrd Amendment, putting all other U.S candle
makers at a competitive disadvantage.
The prospect of Byrd Amendment money discourages settlement of
antidumping and countervailing duty cases through suspension
agreements, and creates an incentive for petitioners to broaden the
scope of cases, often including products not even made in the United
States or made in inadequate quantities. As a result, cases are
broader, last longer and do more damage to consuming industries.
Those who filed and support trade petitions are not required to use
the Byrd money they receive for capital investments, job creation,
worker retraining or improving U.S. competitiveness. Indeed, there are
no provisions in the law for any particular use for these funds. These
companies receive a government handout and may insert the funds
directly into their bottom lines.
Byrd Amendment distributions can actually encourage the loss of
American jobs offshore. Large U.S. Byrd Amendment recipients, for
example the Timken Company, import products from countries that are
subject to dumping orders. Their Byrd Amendment distributions can
offset the dumping duties paid, giving the company an exemption from
the impact of antidumping laws. They, unlike non-Byrd recipients, can
import dumped products from their affiliates overseas without having to
bear the financial burden of antidumping duties, since the U.S.
government reimburses them.
Repealing the Byrd Amendment will not undermine the purpose of the
antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The imposition of duties by
the U.S. government is intended to equalize market conditions in the
United States. Paying money to private companies has never been the
purpose of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Repealing the
Byrd Amendment will leave the original, WTO-legal purpose of these laws
entirely intact.
Congress must consider repeal of the Byrd Amendment as quickly as
possible. The inequities suffered by U.S. consuming industries are real
and growing. Moreover, the specter of retaliation by our aggrieved
trading partners is increasing. While the largest annual Byrd Amendment
distributions totaled a little over $300 million, the possibility of
softwood lumber duties being distributed would put the United States in
a position of absorbing nearly $5 billion in retaliation that could
devastate consuming industries throughout the United States. Congress
can avoid this looming catastrophe by acting promptly to repeal the
Byrd Amendment.
We see no prospect at all for a ``negotiated'' agreement in the WTO
allowing the Byrd Amendment to become a legitimate antidumping or
countervailing duty tool. The congressional ``instruction'' to
``negotiate'' legitimization of the Byrd Amendment has borne no
results. Moreover, legitimizing the Byrd Amendment at the WTO, even if
it were possible, would not alter the fact that it is bad policy for
the United States economy and the American people.
We urge the Committee to incorporate the legislation introduced by
Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to
attach it to any viable legislation to assure its being enacted without
delay. This bill was adopted in the dead of night--it should be
repealed in broad daylight with the greatest possible speed.
We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the
Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Michael I. Fanning
Chairman
Contessa Premium Foods, Inc.
San Pedro, California 90731
August 31, 2005
Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
United States House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing on behalf of Contessa Premium Foods, Inc.
(``Contessa'') to strongly support H.R. 1121 and your efforts to repeal
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (the ``Byrd Amendment'').
The Byrd Amendment has devastating economic effects on a broad
range of U.S. companies. Many businesses like Contessa have been
unfairly penalized by alleged ``antidumping'' petitions filed by a
small number of our competitors and their lawyers who are motivated by
the Byrd Amendment's lucrative kick backs. Insidiously, the Byrd
Amendment allows antidumping margin payments to be transferred from us
to our competitors. It is a blatant subsidy to a very few that must be
ended.
The Byrd Amendment is the epitome a domestic policy that has
totally failed to serve its purpose. In fact, a majority of American
companies don't derive any benefit from the payments provided. It's
shocking to know that more than half the Byrd Amendment payments in
2004 went to only nine (9) companies. Eighty percent (80%) of these
payments went to only forty-four (44) companies. The handful of
companies that received payments are not even required to use it to
take the necessary steps to modernize, improve or be more competitive.
Although payments are supposed to be used for ``qualified
expenditures'', such use is not monitored by anyone in Congress. It's
no wonder the Byrd Amendment is seen as a fabulous windfall for the
fortunate few.
The United States economy derives its strength from the support of
our trading partners. Nevertheless, the Byrd Amendment ironically
exposes U.S. companies to trade retaliation by these same partners.
Based on the unfair effects of the Byrd Amendment, other countries are
compelled to impose the same or similar import duties on U.S. products.
For example, one of the United States staunchest allies, Japan, has
already warned that they will be forced to impose at least a fifteen
percent (15%) duty on U.S. steel and other products. We already know
that the Byrd Amendment has been ruled unlawful by the World Trade
Organization, yet we've done nothing to eliminate its prohibited
practice. Other countries now have the right to impose a total of $150
million in economic sanctions. We must remove the Byrd Amendment before
more damage is done.
The illicit windfall provided by the Byrd Amendment fuels the urge
to file antidumping petitions. In this sense, lawyers and others have
recognized that the Byrd Amendment almost automatically guarantees
large punitive damages against U.S. companies. However, it does nothing
to ``leveling the playing field''. Instead, the Byrd Amendment makes
few companies and their attorneys undeservedly rich. This is a
calculated legal scheme to fleece a majority of American businesses by
using the Byrd Amendment as its linchpin. Unfortunately, the ultimate
consequence is that U.S. consumers continue to pay higher and higher
costs for a wide array of products directly because of the effects of
the Byrd Amendment. This must end.
For Contessa, the impact of the Byrd Amendment is very real and
damaging to our business. Now that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has approved antidumping margins on shrimp imports, Contessa
must make payments every time we import products for distribution to
our valued U.S. customers or for further processing in our U.S. based
production facilities. Adding insult to injury, Contessa and many other
companies are forced to sit idly by while watching our payments being
spent by a domestic industry that has failed to modernize or be
competitive for over twenty (20) years. This is a blatant and unjust
reward that must be eliminated.
The Byrd Amendment passed without adequate consideration by the
appropriate committees of Congress. It continues to inflict injury on
many American companies just like Contessa while unjustly benefiting a
few. It is extremely important for Congress to realize this fact and
take action to do away with the Byrd Amendment.
Contessa and our many U.S. employees strongly urge you to include
H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill during this secession of
Congress. Please do not hesitate to let me know what we can do to help
make H.R. 1121 a reality.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Morrow
General Counsel
Copeland Furniture
Bradford, Vermont 05033
August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Our industry has been inundated with a virtual flood of unfairly
priced imports from China over the last 5 years. Over the long-haul
market forces can correct this condition, but only if the American
wooden bedroom furniture industry survives this onslaught of subsidized
dumping. CDSOA distributions are a crucial component to the effort of
maintaining U.S. manufacturing jobs in the interim. Without the CDSOA
remedy, more jobs will evaporate--in addition to the 18,000 already
lost. If that happens, it is difficult to imagine a scenario whereby
the furniture industry jobs will be restored in this country. The
individuals who do those jobs have developed unique skill sets, which
are not particularly transferable to other professions outside of
woodwork manufacturing. In many cases their only options would be to
step down to lower paying service jobs, or worse yet, become
unemployed.
The rapidity with which this dumping activity has grown to its
current scale is extraordinary. Since 1999 imports from China have
rapidly increased their share of the U.S. market. It is not realistic
to expect individual American companies to weather this onslaught of
unfair competition without some modest level of remedy.
Our company, Copeland Furniture, is located in Bradford, Vermont.
We employ 100 people. The impact of unfairly dumped wooden bedroom
furniture has impacted us in two distinct ways: 1.) Over the last
several years we have seen 35% of our business displaced by unfairly
priced imports. 2.) Consumer price expectations have become
increasingly denominated by product that is subsidized by the Chinese
government. Our strategy to compete has been to offer superior design,
continually improve quality and service and to cater to a segment of
the market that values design higher quality domestically made product.
We've been successful in that we have managed to replace the sales
volume lost to dumped product. However, like most of the rest of the
industry, the flood of low priced products has made necessary price
increases a very difficult sell, putting a tremendous strain on our
bottom line.
CDSOA distributions will be a critical component to Copeland
Furniture's survival and to the jobs it provides. The management and
employees of Copeland Furniture strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its
inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
Yours truly,
Timothy E. Copeland
Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.
Washington, DC 20036
September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This statement is submitted on behalf of the Copper & Brass
Fabricators Council, Inc. and its member companies to express the
Council's opposition to the passage as a part of the Miscellaneous
Tariff Bill of H.R. 1121 calling for the repeal of the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) and H.R. 2473 which would alter
the calculation of the ``all others'' rate in antidumping and
countervailing duty cases in a way that would significantly reduce the
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
The Copper and Brass Fabricators Council is a trade association
that represents the principal copper and brass mills in the United
States. The 20 member companies together account for the fabrication of
more than 80% of all copper and brass mill products produced in the
United States, including sheet, strip, plate, foil, bar, rod, and both
plumbing and commercial tube. These products are used in a wide variety
of applications, chiefly in automotive, construction, and electrical/
electronic industries.
Council member companies employ more than 14,000 workers in good
paying jobs. Appendix A lists the members of the Council and the
addresses and congressional district of each headquarters and
manufacturing facility operated by Council members together with the
number of workers at each location. Also attached is Appendix B which
contains legal analysis supportive of the Council's position.
CDSOA enables Council members injured by unfair foreign trade to
invest in their own companies and workers. Under CDSOA, import duties
are distributed to U.S. manufacturers and workers who have supported
successful trade cases against unfairly traded imports when dumping or
unfair subsidization continues after an order is issued. All Council
member companies have benefited from CDSOA distributions.
For those anxious to end CDSOA distributions the solution is simple
and does not require legislation; simply stop illegal dumping and
subsidies.
With respect to the CDSOA decision in which the WTO improperly
overstepped its authority, in FY 2004 and FY 2005 both Houses of
Congress directed the Bush Administration to negotiate a solution to
the problem. Pursuant to those directives the Administration has stated
to the WTO that it was ``beyond question that countries have the
sovereign right to distribute government revenues as they deem
appropriate''. That is all CDSOA does, it does not change legally
authorized dumping and countervailing duties by a single penny.
There is also a mistaken belief that the WTO found the CDSOA to be
an illegal subsidy. The claim that the CDSOA was an actionable subsidy
causing adverse trade effects was, however, rejected by the WTO panel
and not appealed.
Similarly, those who are opposed to CDSOA make the claim that it
provides an incentive for domestic companies to file baseless
antidumping or countervailing duty petitions. Such claims are simply
unsupported by the record. The highest number of cases filed in recent
years occurred in 1992, eight years prior to passage of the CDSOA. Case
volumes since CDSOA became law are comparable in number to the volume
filed before the law. The main influence on case volume actually
appears to be the general level of economic activity in a given market
with weak economic conditions giving rise to a higher level of case
filings. In the last six months of 2004 only five cases were filed and
that trend has continued in 2005. Nor is there any indication that
court challenges to the ITC and DOC proceedings have increased thus
disproving an alleged rise in so-called frivolous lawsuits.
The Trade Act of 2002 highlighted the ongoing pattern of
overreaching by the WTO which is creating obligations never agreed to
by the United States. The Congress and the Administration should
continue working to ensure that the WTO dispute regarding CDSOA is
resolved in ongoing negotiations in Geneva. The Council and its member
companies strongly oppose repeal or modification of CDSOA in the U.S.
Congress.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter
which is of great importance to the Council and its members.
Very truly yours,
Joseph L. Mayer
President & General Counsel
Council Tool
Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina 28450
August 30, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing on behalf of Council Tool Company Inc. and the 50 some
families whose livelihood is derived from this operation. Located in
Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina, we are a family owned and managed
manufacturing firm which produces heavy forged hand tools. We have
provided continuous employment in this area since 1886.
Please let the record show that all stockholders, managers and hard
working employees of this company strongly oppose H.R. 1121 in the 2005
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which calls for the repeal of CDSOA as well
as H.R. 2473 which alters calculation of the ``all others'' rate in
certain cases. Both of these bills are detrimental to the interests of
Council Tool Company and specifically it's employees as well as
domestic manufacturing in general.
Council Tool is able to benefit from CDSOA because of an ITC ruling
in 1991 declaring much of the product produced in mainland China to be
dumped and the domestic industry injured. Subsequently we have suffered
through and to date weathered unfair Chinese competition for at least
fifteen (15) years. Many of our domestic competitors have not. They are
out of business or sent the manufacturing jobs offshore.
We have only recently benefited from a distribution and I can
unequivocally state that our operation is much more stable and becoming
more efficient as a result of the benefits of same. With the exception
of state and federal income taxes, virtually one hundred (100) percent
of the income this company received under our one distribution has
stayed in the operation. For example:
We strengthened our balance sheet, allowing the company
to survive unprecedented metal, energy and transportation markets over
the last 18 months or so. Steel is the largest material component in
much of our product line. Because of the time lag in passing along
dramatically increased costs--steel, fuel oil, electricity, propane,
motor freight--this created significant margin problems. CDSOA funds
allowed us to weather the aforementioned market conditions without
adverse debt costs.
We were able to acquire several new pieces of induction
heating equipment which we simply would not have considered without the
monetary distribution. With induction heating we are able to heat steel
to high temperatures electrically very quickly as opposed to fuel fired
furnaces. This increases the pace of the operation, reduces the actual
cost of heating the steel and is certainly a more comfortable
atmosphere for the operators of the equipment. This type of equipment,
while more efficient and productive--is not inexpensive. Acquisition
costs of new equipment of this sort are several hundred thousand
dollars each plus installation and ramp up costs. With CDSOA funds we
were able to purchase several new units--not used--and we purchased
sizes we needed, not what we could get by with. Faced with extremely
thin to non-existent margins (due to imported products of Chinese
origin) we would not have considered this without the CDSOA funds.