[WPRT 106-13]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


106th Congress 
 2d Session                 COMMITTEE PRINT                       WMCP:
                                                                 106-13
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         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] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                                     
                             APRIL 20, 2000


  Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means by its staff


                               --------

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-010 CC                   WASHINGTON : 2000




                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                      BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois            CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California              FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut        WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California             BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana               JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa                     RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia                 JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania      KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma                LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida

                     A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

                  Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

                                 ______

                         Subcommittee on Trade

                  PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois, Chairman

BILL THOMAS, California              SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            XAVIER BECERRA, California
WALLY HERGER, California
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa


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 record of written comments remains the 
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare 
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing/written comments 
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 April 20, 2000, announcing request for written 
  comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
  Miscellaneous Duty Suspension bills............................     2

                                 ______

H.R. 1622:
    Fur Commission USA, Corando, CA, statement and attachment....    14
    International Mass Retail Association, Arlington, VA, 
      statement..................................................    18
H.R. 2881: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3276: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3366: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................    21
H.R. 3367: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3368: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3369: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3370: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3371: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3474: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3475: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3476: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3604: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3684:
    California Association of Winegrape Growers, Sacramento, CA, 
      Karen Ross, letter.........................................    23
    Giumarra Vineyards, Bakersfield, CA, John Giumarra, letter...    27
    National Grape Cooperative Inc., Westfield, NY, Richard A. 
      Boushey, Welch Foods, Inc., Concord, MA....................    28
     Fredrick P. Kilian, joint letter............................    28
     Vivian Tseng, joint letter..................................    29
    National Juice Products Association, Tampa, FL, statement and 
      attachment.................................................    30
    Thomas, Hon. William M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, statement.........................    33
H.R. 3704:
    American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, 
      Stephen Lamar, letter......................................    34
    American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Carlos Moore, 
      letter.....................................................    35
    International Mass Retail Association, Arlington, VA, 
      statement..................................................    18
    Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, CA, statement......................    36
    Rubie's Costume Co. Inc., Richmond Hill, NY, Marc Beige, 
      letter.....................................................    37
    Toy Association of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 
      Leeton Lee, letter.........................................    38
H.R. 3714: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R. 
  Johnsen, letter................................................    39
H.R. 3715: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3716: Honeywell International Inc., statement...............    40
H.R. 3717: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3718: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3719: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3720: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3721: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3722: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3723: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3724: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3725: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3726: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................    42

H.R. 3727: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3728: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3729: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3730: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3731: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3733: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3734: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    44
H.R. 3735: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    44
H.R. 3736: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3737: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3738: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3739: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3740: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3741: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3742: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3743: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3746: Honeywell International Inc., statement...............    46
H.R. 3747: Honeywell International Inc., statement...............    47
H.R. 3748: Honeywell International Inc., statement...............    48
H.R. 3751:
    Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, and Hale and Dorr LLP, 
      Bonnie B. Byers, letter....................................    50
    Semiconductor Industry Association, San Jose, CA, Daryl G. 
      Hatano, letter.............................................    51
H.R. 3752: No comments submitted.................................
H.R. 3753: Copper & Bass Fabricators Council, Inc., Joseph L. 
  Mayer, letter and attachment...................................    52
H.R. 3754: Calgon Carbon Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Karl D. 
  Krause, letter.................................................    54
H.R. 3755: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3757: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3758: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3759: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3760: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3762: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA, 
  Charles A.         Kitchen, letter and attachment..............    56
H.R. 3763: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA, 
  Charles A.         Kitchen, letter and attachment..............    57
H.R. 3764: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA, 
  Charles A.         Kitchen, letter and attachment..............    58
H.R. 3772: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3773: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3774: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3775: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3776: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3777: SunChemical Corporation, Cincinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3778:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60

    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3779:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3780:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3781:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3782:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3783:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3784:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62

    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3785:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3786:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3787:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3788:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3789:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63

    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3790:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3791:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3792:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3793:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3794:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64

    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3795:
    Digital Matrix Corporation, Hempstead, NY, Alex Greenspan, 
      statement and attachment...................................    60
    International Electronics Manufacturers and Consumers of 
      America, Keith Smith, letter and attachments...............    62
    Kuykendall, Hon. Steven T., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California, letter............................    63
    Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, CA, Richard L. 
      Wilkinson, statement and attachments.......................    64
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation, Torrance, CA, Robert B. 
      Pfannkuch, letter..........................................    66
    Sony Electronics Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Jim Palumbo, 
      letter.....................................................    68
    Toolex USA, Irvine, CA, Arnold S. Block, letter..............    69
H.R. 3796:
    Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Missouri, letter........................................    76
    Nufarm Limited, and Nufarm America's, Inc., St. Joseph, MO, 
      Roger Unruh, joint letter..................................    77
    United Agri Products, Greeley, CO, James Sell, letter........    78
H.R. 3797:
    Danner, Hon. Pat, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Missouri, letter........................................    78
    Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Gregory E. McDaniel, 
      letter.....................................................    79
    Nufarm Limited, and Nufarm America's, Inc., St. Joseph, MO, 
      Roger Unruh, joint letter..................................    81
    United Agri Products, Greeley, CO, James Sell, letter........    83
H.R. 3801: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................    84
H.R. 3802: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................    85
H.R. 3803: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3804: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3805: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3808: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3813: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3818:
    Haarmann & Reimer, Teterboro, NJ, William J. Ludlum, letter..    86
    Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., Nutley, NJ, and Barnes, Richardson & 
      Colburn, Matthew T. McGrath, letter........................    87
H.R. 3820:
    Ney, Hon. Robert W., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Ohio, letter......................................    88
    Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Newfield, NJ, Eric E. 
      Jackson, letter............................................    89
    Strategic Minerals Corporation, Danbury, CT, Nicholas A. 
      Pyle, letter...............................................    90
H.R. 3821: US JVC Corp., Wayne, NJ, statement....................    91
H.R. 3828: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3837: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3838: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Arlington, VA, 
  Charles A. Kitchen, letter and attachment......................    93
H.R. 3853: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................    95
H.R. 3854: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................    96
H.R. 3855: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R. 
  Johnsen, letter................................................    97
H.R. 3856: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R. 
  Johnsen, letter................................................    98
H.R. 3858: Tata Tea, Incorporated, Plant City, FL, V. 
  Venkiteswaran, statement.......................................    98
H.R. 3868: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3869:
    Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois, letter..................................   100

    Outokumpu Cooper, Inc., Bloomingdale, IL, Martin A. Kroll, 
      and Ulf Anvin, letter and attachments......................   101
    Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Illinois, letter..................................   106
H.R. 3875:
    McDermott International Incorporated, Arlington, VA, Bruce N. 
      Hatton, letter and attachments.............................   107
    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Nuclear Energy Institute, Alliant 
      Energy Corporation, Madison, WI, Northern States Power 
      Company, Minneapolis, MN, Pinnacle West Energy Corporation, 
      Phoenix, AZ, Southern Companies, Atlanta, GA, Westinghouse 
      Electric Company, Pittsburgh, PA, and WPS Resources 
      Corporation, Green Bay, WI, Kirt C. Johnson, and Patrick H. 
      Raffaniello, joint letter and attachments..................   112
H.R. 3876: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen R. 
  Johnsen, letter................................................   132
H.R. 3877: Bayer Corporation, U.S.A., Pittsburgh, PA, Karen L. 
  Niedermeyer, letter............................................   133
H.R. 3930: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3931: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3932: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3933: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3934: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3935: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3936: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3937: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3938: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3939: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3940: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3941: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3942: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3943: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3944: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3945: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3946: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3947: ColorChem International Corp., Atlanta, GA, and Hogan 
  & Hartson, T. Clark Weymouth, and Daniel J. Cannistra, letter..   136
H.R. 3948: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3949: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3950: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3951: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45
H.R. 3952: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3953: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3954: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3955: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3956: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3957: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3958: SunChemical Corporation, Cinncinnati, OH, Stephen J. 
  Schmidt, letter and attachment.................................    45

H.R. 3959: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3960: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3961: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3962: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3963: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3964: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3965: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3966: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3967: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3968: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3969: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3970: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3971: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3972: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3973: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3974: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3975: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3976: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3977: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3978: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3979: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3988: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3989: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3990: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3991: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3992: No comments submitted.
H.R. 4026: International Dairy Foods Association, Janet A. Nuzum, 
  letter.........................................................   143
H.R. 4223: No comments submitted.
H.R. 4229: American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Arlington, 
  VA, Stephen Lamar, letter......................................    34
H.R. 4337:
    Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Josephine S. Cooper, 
      letter.....................................................   145
    American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, 
      Stephen Lamar, Letter......................................    34
    American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York, 
      NY, statement..............................................   146
    American Electronics Association, AnnMarie McIntyre, letter 
      and attachments............................................   147
    Armstrong, Bob, Canadian Importers Association Inc., Toronto, 
      Ontario, Canada, letter....................................   150
    Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, 
      Arlington, VA, Timothy C. MacCarthy, letter................   148
    Baglien, Brent A., ConAgra, Inc., letter.....................   151
    Bunden, Kenichi, Floral Trade Council, Haslett, MI, letter...   156
    Caine, Wesley K., Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and 
      Stewart and Stewart, letter................................   167
    Canadian Importers Association Inc., Toronto, Ontario, 
      Canada, Bob Armstrong, letter..............................   150
    Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, Eric F. Hinton, letter.........   150
    ConAgra, Inc., Brent A. Balien, letter.......................   151
    Cooper, Josephine S., Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 
      letter.....................................................   145
    DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, Janet Y. 
      Sangster, letter...........................................   152
    De Prest, Geert, Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and 
      Stewart and Stewart, letter................................   167
    Federal-Mogul Corporation, Southfield, MI, and Hughes Hubbard 
      & Reed LLP, Janet A. Forest, letter........................   153
    Fennell, William A., Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart 
      and Stewart, letter........................................   166
    Finnegan, James P., U.S. Business Alliance for Customs 
      Modernization, letter and attachments......................   170
    Floral Trade Council, Haslett, MI, Kenichi Bunden, letter....   156
    Forest, Janet A.:
        Federal-Mogul Corporation, Southfield, MI, and Hughes 
          Hubbard & Reed LLP, letter.............................   153
        Lands' End, Inc., Dogeville, WI, and Hughes Hubbard & 
          Reed LLP, letter.......................................   160
    Hinton, Eric F., Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, Letter........   150

    JCPenney Purchasing Corporation, Dallas, TX, Peter McGrath, 
      letter.....................................................   158
    Johanson, David S.:
        Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart and Stewart, 
          letter.................................................   166
        Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and Stewart and 
          Stewart,       letter..................................   167
    Joint Industry Group, Ron Schoof, letter.....................   158
    Land's End Inc., Dodgeville, WI, and Hughes Hubbard and Reed 
      LLP, Janet A. Forest, letter...............................   160
    Lesher, Frank M., Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, 
      letter.....................................................   165
    Levy, M. Barry, Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc., New York, 
      NY and Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C., letter...   169
    MacCarthy, Timothy C., Association of International 
      Automobile Manufacturers, Arlington, VA, letter............   148
    Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, CA, statement......................   162
    McGrath, Peter, JCPenney Purchasing Corporation, Dallas, TX, 
      letter.....................................................   158
    McIntyre, AnnMarie, American Electronics Association, letter 
      and attachments............................................   147
    National Association of Manfacturers, Frank Vargo, letter....   163
    National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, 
      Peter H. Powell, Sr., letter...............................   163
    Sangster, Janet Y., DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn 
      Hills, MI, letter..........................................   152
    Schoof, Ron, Joint Industry Group, letter....................   158
    Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, Frank M. Lesher, 
      letter.....................................................   165
    Stewart, Terence P.:
        Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart and Stewart, 
          letter.................................................   166
        Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and Stewart and 
          Stewart,       letter..................................   167
    Timken Company, Canton, OH, and Stewart and Stewart, Terrence 
      P. Stewart, William A. Fennell, and David S. Johanson, 
      letter.....................................................   166
    Torrington Company, Torrington, CT, and Stewart and Stewart, 
      Terence P. Stewart, Wesley K. Caine, Geert De Prest, David 
      S. Johanson, letter........................................   167
    Toy Manufactures of America, Inc., New York, NY, Sharretts, 
      Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C., M. Barry Levy, letter......   169
    U.S. Business Alliance for Customs Modernization, James P. 
      Finnegan, letter and attachments...........................   170
    Vargo, Frank, National Association of Manufacturers, letter..   163
      

ADVISORY

FROM THE 
COMMITTEE
 ON WAYS 
AND 
MEANS

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                                CONTACT: (202) 225-6649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 20, 2000

No. TR-20

                      Crane Announces Request for

               Written Comments on Technical Corrections

                  to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous

                         Duty Suspension Bills

    Congressman Philip M. Crane (R-IL), 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:

      
    In the first session of the 106th Congress, as part of the ongoing 
process of identifying technical changes to improve the trade laws, a 
number of proposals were submitted to the Subcommittee by the 
Administration, the business community, and the public for possible 
consideration for future legislation. Members also introduced 
legislation to provide temporary suspension of duty or duty-free 
treatment for certain specific products and to change other 
miscellaneous provisions. On August 12, 1999, Chairman Crane requested 
written public comments on a list of such bills that had been 
introduced by June 11, 1999, and requested the Administration's 
position on those bills, a report from the International Trade 
Commission (ITC), and budget scoring estimates from Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) (See TR-15). Those comments are printed in WMCP: 
106-8.

    On January 11, 2000, Chairman Crane requested that all Members who 
planned to introduce similar legislation do so by March 1, 2000. 
Chairman Crane is now requesting public comment on those bills listed 
below and is requesting the Administration's position, an ITC report, 
and budget scoring estimates from CBO. After the comment period, the 
Subcommittee will review all comments to determine which bills should 
be included, together with bills from the list published last August, 
in a miscellaneous trade package. The Committee will consider the 
extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively, 
attract significant controversy, or are not administrable.

    Congress passed the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36) in the first session of the 106th Congress, 
and the legislation was signed into law by the President on June 25, 
1999.
      

SUMMARY OF BILLS:

      
    H.R. 1622--The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999, to prohibit the 
importation of products made with dog or cat fur; to prohibit the sale, 
manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution of 
products made with dog or cat fur in the United States; and to impose 
civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Act.
    H.R. 2881--Amends section 13031(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(1)(A)(iii)) 
to allow for the collection of fees for Customs' services for the 
arrival of certain ferries.

    H.R. 3276--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) by inserting in numerical 
sequence the new heading 9902.28.01, Thionyl chloride (CAS No. 007719-
09-7) (provided for in subheading 2812.10.50), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3366--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.27, 
Phenylmethyl hydrazinecarboxylate (CAS No. 5331-43-1) (provided for in 
subheading 2928.00.25), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3367--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.34, 2-
1[ethoxyimino propyl]-3-hydroxy-5(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)2-cyclohexen-1-
one (Achieve) (CAS No. 87820-88-0) (provided for in subheading 
2934.90.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3368--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.33, 1-
piperidinecarboxylic acid, 2-[(2,4--dichloro-5-
hydroxyphenyl)hydrazono]-, methyl ester (KNOO2) (CAS No. 159393-46-1) 
(provided for in subheading 2933.39.61), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3369--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States by inserting in the numerical 
sequence the new heading 9902.29.30, 2-imino-1-methoxycarbonyl-
piperidine hydrochloride (KL08 4) (CAS No. 159393-48-3) (provided for 
in subheading 2933.39.61), with temporary duty reduction to 6.8 percent 
ad valorem for calender year 2000 and to 6.1 percent for calendar year 
2001.

    H.R. 3370--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.35, 2-
(Methoxycarbonyl) Benzylsulfonamide (IN-N5297) (CAS No. 59777-72-9) 
(provided for in subheading 2935.00.75), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3371--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, 
Methyl(E)-2(2-[6-(2-cyanophonoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pkhenyl)-3-
methoxyacrylate (azoxystrobin formulated ``Heritage,'' ``Abound,'' and 
``Quadris'') (CAS No. 13860-33-8) (provided for in subheading 
3808.20.15), with a temporary duty reduction to 5.7 percent ad valorem.

    H.R. 3474--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.08, Fungaflor 
500 EC, in preparation form, as a fungicide for citrus fruit (provided 
for in subheading 3808.20.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3475--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.20, NORBLOC 
7966, in bulk active form as a benzotriazole stabilizer (CAS No. 96478-
09-0) (provided for in subheading 2933.90.79), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3476--Amendssubchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.10, Imazalil, 
as the active ingredient in fungicides for citrus fruit (CAS No. 73790-
28-0) (provided for in subheading 2933.29.35), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3604--Provides for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 
identified entries in accordance with a final decision of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce under the Tariff Act of 1930.

    H.R. 3684--Amends section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow 
duty drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or Niagara 
grapes.

    H.R. 3704--Amends chapter 95 of the HTSUS by striking subheading 
9503.70.00 and inserting new subheadings and superior text, to 
reclassify certain toys in 9503.70.10 (dress-up sets and outfits, 
marketed year-round for role-play activity, whether or not of textile 
materials, and parts and accessories thereof); and in 9503.70.20 (other 
toys put up in sets or outfits, and parts and accessories thereof). The 
bill also amends the headnotes to chapter 95 and applies retroactively.

    H.R. 3714--Amends heading 9902.32.12 of subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the HTSUS to extend the temporary duty suspension on DEMT.

    H.R. 3715--Amends chapter 70 of the HTSUS to revise the article 
description for monochrome glass envelopes to be eligible for duty-free 
treatment.

    H.R. 3716--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.17, 9-
Anthracene-carboxylic acid, (triethoxysilyl) methyl ester (a certain 
ultraviolet dye) (provided for in subheading 2918.90.90), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3717--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.20, 3-(3,5-
dichlorophenyl)-5-ethenyl-5-methyl-2,4-oxazolidinedione (Vinclozolin) 
(CAS No. 50471-44-8) (provided for in subheading 3808.20.15), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3718--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.64, (E)-2-[1-
[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl) oxy] imino] propyl] -3-hydroxy-5 (tetrahydro-
2H-pyran-4-yl)-2-cyclohexen-1 -one (Tepraloxydim) CAS No. 149979-41-9) 
(provided for in subheading 3808.30.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3719--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.30, 2-tert-
butyl-5-(4-tert-butyl-benzylthio)-4-chloro-pyridazin-3(2H)-one 
(Pyridaben) (CAS No. 96489-71-3) (provided for in subheading 
3808.30.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3720--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new subheading 9902.29.39, 2-Acetylnicotinic acid (CAS 
No. 89942-59-6) (provided for in subheading 2933.39.61), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3721--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.21.06, S-
adenosylmethionine 1.4 butanedisulfonate (SAMe) (CAS No. 557-04-0) 
(provided for in subheading 2106.90.99), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3722--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.32.04, 1,5-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 2-((8-((4-chloro-6-((3-(((4-choloro-6-((7-
((1,5-disulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo)-8-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-1-
naphthlenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)methyl) phenyl)amino)-
1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)-1-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo)-, 
octa-(Procion Crimson H-EXL) (CAS No. 186554-26-7) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.16.30), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3723--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading for Dispersol 
Crimson SF Grains 9902.32.05, a mixture of Benzo (1,2-b:4,5-b)difuran-
2,6-dione,3-phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)-, (CAS No. 79694-17-0); acetic 
acid (4-2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-phenylbenzo(1,2-b:4,5-b)difuran-3-yl)-
phenoxy)-2-ethoxyethyl) ester (CAS No. 126877-05-2); and acetic acid 
(4-(2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-(4-propoxphenyl)benzo(1,2-b:4,5-b)difuran-
3-yl)phenoxy)-phenoxy)-, 2-ethoxyethyl ester (CAS No. 126877-06-3) 
(provided for in subheading 3204.11.35), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3724--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading for Procion Navy H-
EXL 9902.32.09, a mixture of 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-
3,6-bis[[5-[[4-chloro-6-[(2-methyl-4-sulfophenyl) amino]-1,3,5-triazin-
2-yl]amino]-2-sulfophenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-, hexasodium salt (CAS No. 
186554-27-8); and 1,5-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 2-((8-((4-chloro-6-
((3-(((4-chloro-6-((7-((1,5-disulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo)-8-hydroxy-3,6-
disulfo-1-naphthlenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino) 
methyl)phenyl)amino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)-1-hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo)-, octa-(CAS No. 186554-26-7) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.16.30),as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3725--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
striking heading 9902.32.43 and inserting the new subheading for 
Procion Yellow H-EXL 9902.32.43, a mixture of 1,5-Naphthalenedisulfonic 
acid, 3,3-((3-methyl (CAS No. 72906-24-2) and the 4-methyl compound 
-1,2-phyenylene)bis(imino(6-chloro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl)imino(2-
(acetylamino)-5-methoxy-4,1-phenylene)azo))bis-, tetrasodium salt (CAS 
No. 72906-25-3) (provided for in subheading 3204.16.30),as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3726--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, O-phenyl 
phenol (ortho-phenyl phenol (``;OPP'')) (CAS No. 90-43-7) (provided for 
in subheading 2907.19.80), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3727--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.16, 2-
Methoxy-1-Propene (2-Methoxypropene) (CAS No. 116-11-0) (provided for 
in subheading 2909.19.18), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3728--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.55, 3,5-
Difluroaniline (CAS No. 372-39-4) (provided for in subheading 
2921.42.65), with a temporary duty reduction to 6.3 percent ad valorem.

    H.R. 3729--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.46, 3,7-
dichloro-8-quinoline carboxylic acid (Quinclorac) (CAS No. 84087-01-4) 
(provided for in subheading 2933.40.30), with a temporary duty 
reduction to 5.0 percent ad valorem.

    H.R. 3730--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new subheading for Dispersol Black XF Grains 9902.32.44, 
a mixture of Napthalenesulfonic acid, polymer with formaldehyde, sodium 
salt (CAS No. 36290-04-7); .beta.-Alanine, N-(4-((2-bromo-6-choloro-4-
nitrophenyl)azo)phenyl)-N-(3-methoxy-3-oxoproply)-, methyl ester (CAS 
No. 59709-38-5); Ethanol, 2,2-((4-((3,5-dinitro-2-thienyl)azo)phenyl) 
imino)bis-, diacetate (ester) (CAS No. 42783-06-2); and .beta.-Alanine, 
N-(3-(acetylamino)-4-((2,4-dinitrophenly)azo)phenyl)-N-(3-methoxy-3-
oxoproply)-, methyl ester (CAS No. 42783-06-2); and (CAS No. 70729-65-
6) (the foregoing provided for in subheading 3204.11.35), as 
temporarily duty-free

    H.R. 3731--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Fluroxypyr 
1-methylheptyl ester (1-methylheptyl 4 aminooo-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-
pyridyloxyacetate (fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester (FME)) (CAS No. 
81406-37-3) (provided for in subheading 2933.39.25), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3733--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.01, Ethylene/
tetra-fluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE) (provided for in subheading 
3904.69.50), with a temporary duty reduction to 3.0 percent ad valorem.

    H.R. 3734--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.04, Copper, 
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninate(2-)-N29,N30,N31,N32]-, brominated chlorinated 
(monolite green 860) (CAS No. 68512-13-0) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3735--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.02, Copper, 
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninato(2-)-N29,N30,N31,N32]-, brominated chlorinated 
(monolite green 952) (CAS No. 68512-13-0) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.60), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3736--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, 
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, reaction products with 
N,N-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine di-Me sulfate-quaternized (solsperse 
17260) (CAS No. 70879-66-2) (provided for in subheading 3824.90.28), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3737--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.02, 
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, reaction products with 
N,N-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine,di-Me sulfate-quaternized (solsperse 
17000) (CAS No. 70879-66-2) (provided for in subheading 3824.90.40), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3738--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.03, 1-
Octadecanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octadecyl-, (SP-4-2)-[29H,31H-
phthalocyanine-2-sulfonate (3-).kappa.N29, .kappa.N30,.kappa.N31, 
.kappa.N32]cuprate(1-) (solsperse 5000) (CAS No. 70750-63-9) (provided 
for in subheading 3824.90.28), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3739--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.03, 5,9,14,18-
Anthrazinetetrone,6,15-dihydro-(monolite blue 3R) (CAS No. 81-77-6) 
(provided for in subheading 3204.17.9085), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3740--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 
Tetraacetylethylenediamine (certain TAED chemicals) (CAS Nos. 10543-57-
4, 61791-28-4, 9004-32-4, 1328-53-6, 147-14-8, 1302-78-9, and 14808-60-
7) (provided for in subheading 2924.10.10), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3741--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.39.07 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on a 
certain polymer to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3742--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Isobornyl 
acetate (CAS No. 125-12-2) (provided for in subheading 2915.39.45), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3743--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.34.01, Sodium 
petroleum sulfonate (CAS No. 68608-26-4) (provided for in subheading 
3402.11.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3746--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.29.07 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-
hexylresorcinol to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3747--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.29.37 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain sensitizing dyes to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3748--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.32.07 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain organic pigments and dyes to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3751--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.71.08 to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain semi-manufactured forms of gold to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3752--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 4-Nitro-o-
xylene (CAS No. 99-51-4) (provided for in subheading 2904.20.15), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3753--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.74.10, certain 
copper foils (provided for in subheading 7410.11.00), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3754--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.02, certain 
activated carbon (provided for in subheading 3802.10.00), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3755--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.84.60, certain 
buff brushes (provided for in subheading 8466.93.95), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3757--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.73, Solvent 
Blue 124 (CAS No. 29243-26-3) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.20), 
as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3758--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.72, Solvent 
Blue 104 (CAS No. 116-75-6) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.20), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3759--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.74, Pigment Red 
176 (CAS No. 12225-06-8) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.04), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3760--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.96, 
Benzensulfonamide,4-amino-2,5-dimethyoxy-N-phenyl (CAS No. 52298-44-9) 
(provided for in subheading 2935.00.10), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3762--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 10-
Undecylenic acid (CAS No. 112-38-9) (provided for in subheading 
2916.19.30), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3763--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.02, n-
Heptaldehyde (CAS No. 111-71-7) (provided for in subheading 
2912.19.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3764--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.03, n-Heptanoic 
acid (CAS No. 111-14-8) (provided for in subheading 2915.90.18), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3772--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.04, Pigment 
Yellow 199 (CAS No. 136897-58-0) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.60), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3773--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.10, Pigment 
Blue 60 (CAS No. 81-77-6) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.90), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3774--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.09, Solvent 
Violet 13 (CAS No. 81-48-1) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.20), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3775--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.05, Solvent 
Blue 67 (CAS No. 81457-65-0) (provided for in subheading 3204.19.11), 
as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3776--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.17, Pigment 
Yellow 147 (CAS No. 4118-16-5) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.60), 
as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3777--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.20, Pigment 
Yellow 191.1 (CAS No. 154946-66-4) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.60), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3778--Amends subheadings 8477.10.40 and 8479.89.85 of the 
HTSUS to provide duty-free treatment for, and clarify the 
classification of, machines and components used in the manufacture of 
digital versatile discs (DVDs).

    H.R. 3779--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.01, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8456.99.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3780--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.06, In-Line 
System Machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or 
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3781--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.02, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8460.40.40), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3782--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.07, Laser 
Encoder Machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or 
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3783--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.03, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8462.41.00), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3784--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.08, electrical 
machines and apparatus, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8543.30.00), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3785--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.04, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8464.20.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3786--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.09, electrical 
machines and apparatus, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8543.89.96), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3787--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.05, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8464.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3788--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.15, Coater 
machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or parts 
thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading 
8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3789--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.13, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8477.10.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3790--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the f new heading 9902.84.16, Bonding 
machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or parts 
thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading 
8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3791--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.14, Stacker 
machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or parts 
thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading 
8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3792--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.17, Gold 
sputter machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or 
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3793--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.18, Aluminum 
sputter machines, whether imported as an entirety, or in components, or 
parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8479.89.97), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3794--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.19, machines or 
mechanical appliances, whether imported separately or as an entirety, 
and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of DVDs (provided for in 
subheading 8480.79.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3795--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.84.21, measuring 
or checking instruments, appliances, or machines, whether imported 
separately or as an entirety, and parts thereof, for use in the 
manufacture of DVDs (provided for in subheading 9031.49.90), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3796--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid (CAS No. 9021-09-6) (provided for in 
subheading 2918.90.20), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3797--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.02, 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, its salts and esters (CAS No. 29091-09-6) 
(provided for in subheading 2918.90.20), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3801--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, 
Iminodisuccinate (CAS No. 144538-83-0) (provided for in subheading 
3824.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3802--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.02, 
Iminodisuccinate salts and aqueous solutions (provided for in 
subheading 3824.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3803--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.85.04, (120/60Hz 
electrical transformers (provided for in subheading 8504.31.40), with 
dimensions not exceeding 78mm by 64.5mm by 88.7mm and containing 
stacked EI laminations with an integral bobbin, imported for use as 
components in radiobroadcast receivers with digital clock or clock-
timer, valued over $40 each) (provided for in subheading 8527.32.50), 
the foregoing which include a resonant system tuned to at least five 
audible , as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3804--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.85.05, 120/60Hz 
electrical transformers (provided for in subheading 8504.31.40), with 
dimensions not exceeding 51.7mm by 78mm by 91mm and each containing a 
layered and uncut round core with two balanced bobbins, imported for 
use as components in radio recorder combinations, incorporating optical 
disc (including compact disc) players or recorders (provided for in 
subheading 8527.31.60), the foregoing which include a resonant system 
tuned to at least five audible frequencies, as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3805--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.01, 
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) self-adhesive sheets of a type used to make 
bandages (provided for in subheading 3919.19.50), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3808--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, BEPD 2-
Butyl-2-ethylpropanediol (CAS No. 115-84-4) (provided for in subheading 
2905.39.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3813--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 
Cyclohexadee-8-en-1-one (CHD) (CAS No. 3100-36-5) (provided for in 
subheading 2914.29.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3818--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.17, 2-
ethylbexyl 3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-propenoate (octylmethoxycinnamate) 
(CAS No. 5466-77-3) (provided for in subheading 2918.90.30), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3820--To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of 
certain identified entries of carbides.

    H.R. 3821--To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of 
certain identified color television receiver entries.

    H.R. 3828--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.33, N-Cyclopropyl-N-(1,1-
dimethylethy)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine (a paint 
additive chemical) (certain polyamides) (CAS No. 28159-98-0) (provided 
for in subheading 2933.69.60), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3837--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Ortho-
cumyl-octylphenol (OCOP) (CAS No. 73936-80-8) (provided for in 
subheading 2907.19.80), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3838--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.08, Micro-
porous ultra fine spherical forms of polyamides 6, 12, and 6/12 powder 
(provided for in subheading 3908.10.00), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3853--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.14, a 
certain Alkylsulfonie Acid Ester of Phenol (Mesamoll) (CAS No. 70775-
94-9)(provided for in subheading 3812.20.10), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3854--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.30, a 
mixture of N-Phenyl-N-((trichloromethyl)thio)-Benzenesulfonamide; 
calcium carbonate; and mineral oil (Vulkalent E/C) (provided for in 
subheading 3824.90.28), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3855--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.29.34, a 
certain 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (Baytron M) (CAS No. 126213-50-1) 
(provided for in subheading 2934.90.90), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3856--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.38.15, a 
certain catalytic preparation based on Iron (III) toluenesulfonate 
(Baytron C-R) (CAS No. 77214-82-5) (provided for in subheading 
3815.90.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3858--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.21.01, 
Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences, or concentrates of tea 
or mate, or with a basis of tea or mate, described in additional U.S. 
note 8 to chapter 7 and entered pursuant to its provisions (provided 
for in subheading 2101.20.54), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3868--To provide for the reliquidation of certain identified 
entries of vacuum cleaners as duty-free.

    H.R. 3869--To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of 
certain identified entries of copper and brass sheet and strip.

    H.R. 3875--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new subheading 9902.84.02, 
Watertube boilers with a steam production exceeding 45 t per hour, for 
use in nuclear facilities (provided for in subheading 8402.11.00), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3876--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.39.01, a certain 
mixture of water and poly(3,4-ethylene-dioxythiophene)-poly 
(styrenesulfonate) (cationic) (Baytron P) (CAS No. 155090-83-8) 
(provided for in subheading 3911.90.25), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3877--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, Dimethyl 
dicarbonate (CAS No. 4525-33-1) (provided for in subheading 
2920.90.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3930--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.01, 2,4-
dichloro-5-hydroxyhydrazine hydrochloride (KN001 (a hydrochloride)) 
(CAS No. 189573-21-5) (provided for in subheading 2928.00.25), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3931--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.02, Methyl 
thioglycolate (CAS No. 2365-48-2) (provided for in subheading 
2930.90.90), as temporarily duty -free.

    H.R. 3932--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is 
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.03, 
Methyl-4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate (KL540) 
(CAS No. 173903-15-6) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.70), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3933--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is 
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.04, 
(S)-6-chloro-3,4-dihydro-4-E-cyclopropylethenyl-4-trifluoromethyl-
2(1H)-quinozolinone (DPC 083) (CAS No. 214287-99-7) (provided for in 
subheading 2933.90.46), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3934--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.20.05, (S)-6-
chloro-3,4-dihydro-4-cyclopropylethynyl-4-trifluoromethyl-2(1H)-
quinozolinone (DPC 961) (CAS No. 214287-88-4) (provided for in 
subheading 2933.90.46), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3935--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902-----,5-[4-(4,5-
dimethyl-2-sulfo-phenylamino)-6-hydroxy-[1,3,5-] triazin-2-yl amino]-4-
hydroxy-3-(1-sulfo-naphthalen-2-ylazo)-naphthalene-2,7-disulphonic 
acid, sodium/ammonium salt (Pro-Jet Magenta 364 Stage) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3936--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902------,5-[4-(7-
amino-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-naphthalen-2-ylazo)-2,5-bis-(2-hydroxy-ethoxy)-
phenylazo]-isophthalic acid, lithium salt (Pro-Jet Black 263 Stage) 
(provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3937--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.48, Pigment 
Yellow 184 (provided for in subheading 3206.49.5000), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3938--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.02, 1,5-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3-[[6-[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diyl]bis[imino (2-methyl-4, 1-phenylene)azo]]bis-, 
tetrasodium salt (Pro-Jet Yellow 1 Stage) (CAS No. 50925-42-3), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3939--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.25, Pigment 
Orange 73 (CAS No. 84632-59-7) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.6085), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3940--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is 
amended by inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.03, 
2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis [[4-[(2,4-
diaminophenyl) azo]phenyl]azo]-5-hydroxy-(Direct Black 19 Press Paste) 
(CAS No. 7518-68-5) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.5000), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3941--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.04, Trisodium 
4-amino-3-[[4-[[4-[(2-amino-4-hydroxyphenyl) azo] phenyl] amino]-3-
sulphonatophenyl] azo]-5-hydroxy-6-(phenylazo) naphtalene-2,7-
disulphonate (Pro-Jet Black HSAQ Stage) (CAS No. 85631-88-5) (provided 
for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3942--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.09, 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-[[4-[(7-amino-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo]-6-sulfo-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-, sodium salt (Pro-Jet 
Fast Black 286 Paste) (CAS No. 201932-24-3) (provided for in subheading 
3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3943--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.21, 
Benzenesulfonic acid, 3,3-[carbonyl bis[imino (3-methoxy-4,1-
phenylene)azo]] bis-disodium salt (Pro-Jet Yellow 1G Stage) (CAS No. 
10114-86-0) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.5000), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3944--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.28, Pigment Red 
255 (CAS No. 54660-00-3) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.6085), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3945--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.20, Copper, 
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninato(2-) -N29,N30, N31,N32]-, aminosulfonyl sulfo 
derivs. (Pro-Jet Cyan 1 Press Paste) (CAS No. 80146-12-9) (provided for 
in subheading 3204.14.50), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3946--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.05, a 2:1 
mixture of; a) tris(3,5,5-trimethylhexylammonium) 4-amino-3-(4-[4-(4-
amino-2-hydroxyphenylazo)anilino]-3-sulphonatophenylazo)-5,6-dihydro-5-
oxo-6-phenylhydrazonaphthalene-2,7-disulphonateb) tris(3,5,5-
trimethylhexylammonium) 4-amino-3-(4-[4-(2-amino-2-
hydroxyphenylazo)anilino]-3-sulphonatophenylazo)-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-6-
phenylhydrazonaphthalene-2,7-disulphonate (Pro-Jet Black Alc Powder) 
(provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3947--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.32, Solvent 
Yellow 163 (CAS No. 13676-91-0) (provided for in subheading 
3204.19.2090), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3948--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.10, 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5,5-[[6-(4-morpholinyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
diyl]bis(imino-4,1-phenyleneazo)]bis-, ammonium/sodium/hydrogen salt 
(Pro-Jet Fast Yellow 2 RO Feed) (provided for in subheading 
3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3949--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.46, Solvent 
Yellow 145 (CAS No. 27425-55-4) (provided for in subheading 
3204.19.2595), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3950--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.15, 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5,5-[(2,5-dimethyl-1,4-
piperazinediyl)bis[(1,6-dihydro-6-oxo-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl)imino(8-
hydroxy-3,6-disulfo-1,7-naphthalenediyl)azo]]bis-, ammonium/sodium/
hydrogen salt (Pro-Jet Fast Magenta 2 RO Feed) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty free.

    H.R. 3951--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.47, Pigment Red 
264 (CAS No. 88949-33-1) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.6085), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3952--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.17, Copper, 
[29H,31H-phthalocyaninato(2-)-N29,N30, N31,N32]-, [(3-
carboxyphenyl)amino]sulfonyl sulfo derivs., ammonium sodium hydrogen 
salts (Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 2 Stage) (provided for in subheading 
3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3953--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.23, [(2-hydro-
xyethylsul-famoyl)sulfo-phthalo-cyaninato] copper (II), mixed isomers 
(Pro-Jet Cyan 485 Stage) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as 
temporarily duty-fee.

    H.R. 3954--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, Methyl 2-
[[[[[-4(dimethylamino) -6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) -1,3,5-triazin-2-yl] 
-amino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate (a triflusulfuron 
methyl formulated product) (CAS No. 126535-15-7) (provided for in 
subheading 3808.10.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3955--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.24, Copper, 
[29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato (2-)-xN29, xN30, xN31, xN32]-, [[2-[4-(2-
amino-ethyl)-1-piper-azinyl]ethyl]-amino]sulfonyl aminosulfonyl [(2-
hydroxy-ethyl)amino]-sulfonyl [[2-[[2-(1-piperazinyl)-ethyl]amino)-
ethyl]amino]-sulfonyl sulfo derivs., sodium salts (Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 3 
Stage) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.3000), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3956--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.02, Copper, 
[29H, 31H-phthalocyaninato(2-)-N29, N30, N31, N32]-, aminosulfonyl 
sulfo derivs., sodium salts (Pro-Jet Cyan 1 RO Feed) (CAS No. 80146-12-
9) (provided for in subheading 3204.14.50), with a temporary duty 
reduction to 9.5 percent ad valorem.

    H.R. 3957--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.03, 1,3-
benzenedicarboxylic acid, 5-[[4-[(7-amino-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
naphthalenyl) azo]-1-naphthalenyl] azo]-, trisodium salt (Pro-Jet Fast 
Black 287 NA Paste/Liquid Feed) (CAS No. 160512-93-6) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.14.30), with a temporary duty reduction to 7.8 percent 
ad valorem.

    H.R. 3958--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.49, Pigment 
Yellow 168 (CAS No. 71832-85-4) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.6085), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3959--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.22, 4-(Cyclopropyl-a-hydroxy-
methylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethyl ester (CAS No. 
95266-40-3) (provided for in subheading 2916.20.50), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3960--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.38, 8-a-oxo-emamectin benzoate 
desmethylemamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate methanol adduct 2-epl-
emamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate isomer, 4-epl-D-2,3-emamectin 
benzoate dihydroemamectin benzoate (CAS No. 137512-74-4) (provided for 
in subheading 2938.90.00), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3961--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.10, Propanoic 
acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynyl 
ester (CAS No.105512-06-9) (provided for in subheading 3808.30.15), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3962--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.21, Certain 
end-use products containing benzenesulfonamide, 2-(2-chloroethoxy)N-
[[4methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl]-(CAS No. 82097-
50-5) and 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (CAS No. 1918-00-9) 
(provided for in subheading 3809.30.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3963--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
striking heading 9902.29.41 and inserting the new heading 9902.29.41, 
Benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-a-(-(methoxyimino) -2[[[[1-[3-
trifluoromethyl) phenyl] ethylidene] amino]oxy] methyl]-, methyl ester 
(CAS No. 141517-21-7) (provided for in subheading 2930.90.10), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3964--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.39, 3-[4,6-Bis (difluoromethoxy)-
pyrimidin-2-yl]-1-(2-methoxycarbonyl-phenylsulfonyl) urea (CAS No. 
86209-51-05) (provided for in subheading 2935.00.75), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3965--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.25, 5-
Dipropylamino-a,a,a-trifluoro-4,6-dinitro-o-toluidine (CAS No. 29091-
21-2) (provided for in subheading 2921.43.80), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3966--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.13, Sulfur (CAS 
No. 7704-34-9) (provided for in subheading 3808.20.50), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3967--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the f new heading 9902.38.09, 3-(6-
methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2-chloro-ethoxy)-
phenylsulfonyl]-urea (CAS No. 82097-50-5) (provided for in subheading 
3808.30.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3968--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.14, 4-
Cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine-4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-
benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile (CAS No. 131341-86-1) 
(provided for in subheading 3808.20.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3969--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.32.10, Pigment 
Blue 60 (CAS No. 81-77-6) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.90), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3970--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.27, (R)-2-[2,6-dimethylphenyl)-
methoxyacetyl-amino]-propionic acid methyl ester (CAS Nos. 7-830-17-7 
and 69516-34-3) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.47), as temporarily 
duty-fee.

    H.R. 3971--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.22, 
Benzothialdiazole-7-carbothioic acid S-methyl ester (CAS No. 135158-54-
2) (provided for in subheading 3803.20.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3972--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.33, 
Benzothialdiazole-7-carbothioic acid S-methyl ester (CAS No. 135158-54-
2) (provided for in subheading 2933.69.60), as temporarily duty -fee.

    H.R. 3973--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.30, O-(4-Bromo-2-chlorophenyl)-O-
ethyl-S-propyl phosphorothioate (CAS No. 41198-08-7) (provided for in 
subheading 2930.90.10), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3974--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.35, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole (CAS No. 60207-90-
1) (provided for in subheading 2934.90.12), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3975--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.34, tetrahydro-
3-methyl-N-nitro-5[[2-phenylthio)-5-thiazolyl]-4-H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-
imine (CAS No. 192439-46-6) (provided for in subheading 2934.90.16), as 
temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3976--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.40, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-
yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea (CAS No. 94125-
34-5) (provided for in subheading 2935.00.75), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3977--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting the new heading 9902.29.33 1,2,4-Triazin-3(2H)one, 4,5-
dihydro-6-meth-yl-4-[(3-pyridinylmeth-ylene)amino](CAS No.23312-89-0) 
(provided for in subheading2933.69.60), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3978--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.34, 4-(2,2-
difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile (CAS No. 
131341-86-1) (provided for in subheading 2934.90.12), as temporarily 
duty-free.

    H.R. 3979--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.22, 3-(6-
methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2-chloro-ethoxy)-
phenylsulfonyl]-urea-3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (CAS No. 1982-
69-0) (provided for in subheading 3808.30.15), as temporarily duty-
free.

    H.R. 3988--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.33.61, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Carbamic Acid (V-9069) to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3989--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in numerical sequence the new heading 9902.38.01, 2-(((((4,6-
Di-methoxypyrimi-din-2-yl) aminocarbonyl))-N,N-dimethyl-3-
pyridinecarboxamide (Accent) (CAS No. 122931-48-0) (provided for in 
subheading 3808.10.15), as temporarily duty-free.

    H.R. 3990--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.33.60, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Rimsulfuron to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3991--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.33.63, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on DPX-
E9260 to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 3992--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS in 
heading 9902.33.63, to extend the temporary suspension of duty on DPXE 
6578 to December 31, 2003.

    H.R. 4026--Amends subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTSUS (HTSUS) 
to insert a new subheading: 9802.00.95, under which certain food stuffs 
originating in NAFTA countries would receive duty-free treatment upon 
meeting certain conditions: (1) satisfy the rules of origin under NAFTA 
as set forth in General Note 12 of the HTSUS--such food stuffs must be 
processed in Canada or Mexico using a material exported from the United 
States, (2) any dairy ingredient used in the processing of the good in 
Canada or Mexico must be of U.S. origin and consistent with the current 
tariff-rate quota provisions on sugar-containing products, (3) the 
goods as imported into the United Stated may not contain foreign-origin 
cane or beet sugar in excess of 10 percent by dry weight, (4) an 
additional limitation excludes from the scope of the provision dairy 
products such as cheeses manufactured in Canada or Mexico, even if all 
milk or cream used in such manufacturing were of U.S. origin. The bill 
also would add a new U.S. note 7 to subchapter II of chapter 98, to 
provide (in subparagraph 7(a)) that products entered under subheading 
9802.00.95 would not be subject to safeguard duties and would not be 
counted against the in-quota quantities for otherwise-applicable 
tariff-rate quota provisions.

    H.R. 4223--Amends subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTSUS by 
inserting in the numerical sequence the new heading 9902.29.47, 5-
Amino-1(2,6,-dichloro-4-trifluromethy-1)phynyl)-4-((1,r,s,)-
trifluromethy-1)sulfinyl)-1-h-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile: fipronil 
90mp(Fipronil Technical) (CAS No. 120068-37-3) (provided for in 
subheading 2933.19.23), with a temporary duty reduction to 5 percent ad 
valorem.

    H.R. 4229--Amends chapter 51 of the HTSUS by striking subheading 
5111.11.70, and inserting two new subheadings, 5111.65.65 and 
5111.11.75, to expand the scope of the existing subheading 5111.11.70 
to include imported hand-loomed fabric in a wider width.

    H.R. 4337--Amends the following sections of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to entry revision procedures: (1) (a) section 484 (19 
U.S.C. Sec. 1484)--to require minimum data (description of the 
merchandise, classification, country of origin, and admissibility 
documentation) at the time of entry for release of imported merchandise 
from Customs' custody; (b) section 499 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1499)--toamend 
the current conditions for release of imported merchandise from 
Customs' custody; and (c) section 401 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401)--to conform 
remote filing to include the electronic entry of the import activity 
summary statement (IASS),(2) section 414 (19 U.S.C Sec. 1414)--to allow 
importers the option of filing one IASS per month in lieu of entry 
summaries for each individual transaction as currently required by the 
Customs Service, and to amend the Mod Act ``remote location filing'' 
section to conform with this option, (3) section 484 (19 U.S.C 
Sec. 1484)--to allow an importer to declare its information using 
either the current individual entry summary system or by filing a 
monthly IASS which will resemble an individual entry summary, except 
that it will contain aggregate information for the entire month. In 
addition, absent fraud, variances in the information provided would be 
considered clerical errors. This amendment would (a) permit the 
importer to segregate and total the information by tariff number, 
country of origin, and special program indicator (e.g., GSP), as 
currently permitted for entry summaries, (b) not require information 
relating to specific entries or shipments, i.e., importers would not 
have to list the activity for each and every entry during the month, 
and (c) treat the IASS just as any other entry summary for purposes of 
administration of the customs laws, (4) section 505(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1505(c)) -to re-authorize mid-point 
interest, first established as part of P.L. 106-36, which allows the 
collection of interest on duty underpayments without an entry-by-entry 
calculation, (5) section 484 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1484) -to eliminate the 
requirement that each entry be flagged for reconciliation, and to allow 
importers to reconcile any element of an entry, (6) section 592 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1592) -(a) absent fraud, to allow 
importers to correct import information in an entry summary, IASS and/
or reconciliation, and variances in the shipment information as 
clerical errors; (b) to provide that, in cases of errors in an entry, 
entry summary, IASS, or reconciliation information that cancel out each 
other, the violation would be only material to the extent of the net 
error or omission, and (c) to allow importers to offset duty 
overpayments against underpayments for a relevant period for Customs 
enforcement actions and prior disclosures, (7) section 401a of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401a)--to requirethe Customs 
Service to ensure that the circumstances of sale are examined for a 
representative period to determine whether transaction value can be 
used, (8) section 313 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313)--to allow drawback where 
there is valuable waste, and for the available drawback to be reduced 
by taking into account the residual commercial value of the product, 
(9) section 322 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1322)--to allow containers and shipping 
devices that are not imported into the United States as articles of 
commerce to be subject to the exclusions contained in the HTSUS as 
``Instruments of International Traffic'' (IIT's); and, (10) the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1202)--to renumber General 
Notes 15-21 and add a new General Note to allow an importer the option 
of classifying discrete pieces of machinery (certain dies, machinery 
tools and equipment) under the tariff provision for the complete, 
finished good provided that the importer meets certain entry conditions 
and proof thresholds.
      

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

      
    Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement 
for the printed record should submit six (6) single-spaced copies of 
their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in 
WordPerfect or MS Word format, with their name, address, and comments 
date noted on label, by the close of business, Friday, May 19, 2000, to 
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House 
of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 
D.C. 20515.
      

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

      
    Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a 
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed 
record or any written comments in response to a request for written 
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or 
exhibit 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 statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must 
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or 
MS Word format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10 
pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee 
will rely 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. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a 
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written 
comments in response to a published request for comments by the 
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all 
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
      
    4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the 
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or 
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet 
will not be included in the printed record.
      
    The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being 
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary 
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press, 
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted 
in other forms.
      

    Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on 
the World Wide Web at ``http://waysandmeans.house.gov''.
      

                                


H.R. 1622

    To prohibit the importation of products made with dog or 
cat fur, to prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale, 
transportation, and distribution of products made with dog or 
cat fur in the United States, and for other purposes.
      

                                


Statement of Fur Commission USA, Corando, California

    Fur Commission USA represents over 600 mink and fox farming 
families on over 400 farms in 31 states. We seek to educate the 
public about responsible fur farming, ensure the best care for 
our animals, and to celebrate and secure fur-farming families.
    Fur bearing animals have been raised on farms in North 
America since shortly after the Civil War. Today's farm-raised 
fur bearers are among the world's best cared-for livestock. 
Good nutrition, comfortable housing and prompt veterinary care 
have resulted in domestic animals very well suited to the farm 
environment. Precise attention to animal care has enabled North 
American farmers to produce the finest quality fur in the 
world.
    At the outset, it should be noted that the intent of H.R. 
1622 could be achieved by simply establishing an importation 
prohibition, which could then be integrated within existing 
Customs enforcement schemes. Many such import prohibitions 
exist in law and are enforceable by Customs. Indeed, Customs 
already has authority to assess penalties, seize merchandise 
and subject such merchandise to forfeiture, subject to normal 
due process protections. Moreover, sales of fur products are 
subject to a labeling scheme administered by the Federal Trade 
Commission. Mislabeling of the products can result in the 
imposition of significant penalties.
    Given the current authority possessed by U.S. Customs to 
enforce an import ban and the FTC labeling requirements, the 
administrative and judicial enforcement scheme contained in 
H.R. 1622 is not only excessive, but is also overly broad, 
vague and confusing for the following reasons:
        1. The legislation establishes a cause of action wherein any 
        individual could bring a citizen's suit to compel the Secretary 
        of Treasury to enforce the Act or to enjoin an individual from 
        taking any action deemed to be in violation of the Act. 
        Establishing such a broad basis for legal standing could result 
        in numerous law suits brought by anti-fur activists, regardless 
        of whether the private citizen bringing the suit has knowledge 
        that the activity in question is in violation of the 
        prohibitions contained in this legislation.
        2. The legislation establishes broad seizure and arrest 
        authority based on a ``duly-authorized officer's'' reasonable 
        belief that a violation has occurred. A law designed to be 
        administered by the U.S. Customs Service cannot permit private 
        citizens, particularly individuals who have a broader agenda 
        with respect to fur, to be involved in any aspect of the 
        enforcement scheme. Unfortunately, the current language of the 
        bill leaves open the possibility that a ``duly-authorized 
        officer'' could in fact be a private citizen.
        3. The legislation suggests that the Department of Justice 
        (through the U.S. Attorney structure) will be involved in the 
        enforcement of this legislation, regardless of whether a 
        violation is criminal or civil.
        4. The legislation, to the extent it prohibits certain 
        manufacturing and sales activities, preempts the regulation of 
        activities that normally fall under the jurisdiction of the 
        states.
        5. The legislation's mandate that a person who violates any 
        provision of the Act can be enjoined from further sales of any 
        fur product is excessive and probably would not withstand 
        judicial scrutiny. Such a sanction, if it is to be included, 
        must be limited to those individuals who have criminally (with 
        knowledge and intent) violated the prohibition. Even in these 
        instances, however, it is doubtful that a court would issue an 
        injunction denying an individual his livelihood based on a 
        violation of this statute.
    If the intent of the bill's sponsors is to create a unique 
and complex criminal and civil statutory enforcement scheme, 
which includes private citizen suits, the bill must be referred 
to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to ensure that the 
bill does not become a vehicle for harassing legitimate fur 
industry interests or depriving individuals in the fur trade of 
their rights. More generally, referral is critical given that 
the legislation would affect the U.S. criminal code and create 
new causes of action that will be justiciable under the federal 
court system.
    On the other hand, if Customs is to be the principal 
implementing agency for this legislation, then the bill can be 
modified to ensure consistency with existing Customs 
administrative enforcement schemes, particularly with respect 
to burden of proof, forfeiture, and search and seizure 
authority. The inconsistencies between the legislation's 
enforcement scheme and Customs' are likely to create serious 
administrative burdens for the Customs Service. These 
inconsistencies could be addressed by integrating any 
importation ban into the Customs Service's general enforcement 
scheme.
    Finally, the definitions of dog and cat fur (Canis 
familiaris and Felis catus or Felis domesticus) contained in 
the legislation correctly limit the scope of the bill to 
animals generally recognized as household pets. Distinguishing 
these species from others, however, is often difficult for 
those outside the industry, particularly for those who would 
rely on DNA evidence to make these distinctions. Indeed, 
experts in the field have claimed that even DNA evidence is not 
adequate to identify and distinguish fur of the Canis 
familiaris species and the Felis catus species. See ``Dogs, 
Cats and DNA,'' attached hereto. At a minimum, to ensure that 
the implementation of any import prohibition does not 
inadvertently impede the legitimate fur trade, the legislative 
history should reaffirm that the bill is not intended to affect 
trade in other wild or commercially raised canine or feline 
species, the fur or hair of which is generally-recognized for 
use in clothing and outer wear.

           *         *         *         *         *

    The U.S. fur farming industry believes that products 
derived from domesticated dogs and cats, if properly labeled as 
required by law, are unacceptable to the U.S. public and would 
not find a market within our borders. At the same time, the 
industry is deeply concerned that H.R. 1622, with its 
unprecedented enforcement scheme could impede the legitimate 
trade in fur products, and is likely to create more problems 
for the U.S. government and the courts than is necessary, given 
the scope of the problem, and the availability of alternative 
and more direct approaches for addressing the issue. The 
Committee must address these concerns before allowing this 
legislation to move forward.
            Attachment
                                       Teresa Platt        
                                                 Executive Director
                                            Coronado, CA 92118-2698

FCUSA COMMENTARY

                           Dogs, Cats and DNA

               By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA

    AMERICANS ARE NOTED FOR THEIR LOVE of domesticated cats and 
dogs, our cherished pets. We have selectively bred a wide range 
of animals that are clean, loyal and rewarding companions. 
There truly is a pet for everyone, no matter what the lifestyle 
or need.
    In 1998 and 1999, the Humane Society of the United States 
(HSUS) claimed that by using DNA testing, it found the fur of 
domesticated dog and cat mislabeled and used as trim in 
garments and figurines sold in the US. Obviously, most 
Americans would find such a trade unacceptable and reject the 
products immediately if they were correctly labeled.
    Mislabeling any product, no matter how inexpensive, is 
consumer fraud, and comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Trade Commission (FTC). Fines and penalties can be severe.

                        Trade in Animal Products

    Canines and felines, as with many other species, occur both 
in the wild and in domesticated settings, plus there are feral 
populations of domesticated animals now living wild. The meat 
and fur of wild canines and felines, such as raccoon dog, 
coyote, fox, wolf, bobcat and lynx, are utilized in most 
societies and traded widely. International trade in any wild 
species at risk is, of course, tightly controlled by the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
(CITES).
    Farmed production complements the wild harvest--an 
important tool in wildlife management--by stabilizing prices 
during times of high demand and ensuring wildlife caretakers 
respond to the needs of biologists, not the market. Although we 
have a thriving global market for mink and fox pelts, farmed 
production ensures their wild cousins are never depleted.
    Cultural taboos exist in the US and elsewhere against using 
products from domesticated dogs and cats, even from controlled 
feral populations, and so the remains of these millions of 
animals are discarded. In parts of Asia, however, domesticated 
dog and cat remains are fully utilized and even sold.
    According to Rick Swain of HSUS, China is ``killing 
hundreds of thousands of cats, and about 20 percent of the 
figurines sold in the United States are made with real cat 
hides,''(1) with the balance coming from rabbit skins and 
synthetic materials.
    The key questions: are illegally mislabeled products 
entering the US? Can DNA testing help in this area? And what is 
a discerning consumer to do?
    Labeling Controls and Consumer Fraud
    International brokers, of course, know their goods and, 
when trading across cultural lines, take care to purchase 
products acceptable to consumers while meeting the labeling 
laws of importing countries. No one, for example, would attempt 
to develop a business selling beef to India.
    In the US, the FTC is charged with ensuring all products 
are labeled correctly so consumers can buy or reject them for 
any reason. It is consumer fraud and illegal to mislabel a 
product, no matter how inexpensive. Additionally, the Fur 
Products Labeling Act, also administered by the FTC, has 
specific controls for the labeling of fur products costing over 
$150.

                  Questions, Questions on DNA Testing

    The coats that HSUS questioned in 1998 were labeled 
``Mongolian dog,'' a wild species native to Mongolia where it 
is hunted to protect humans and livestock. HSUS claimed, 
however, that DNA testing proved the pelts came from 
domesticated dogs. In 1999, it claimed to have found figurines 
labeled rabbit but made with ``real cat hair.''
    FCUSA asked HSUS to share its raw data and DNA test 
results. When it refused, we became curious and began 
questioning genetic experts. What we learned was fascinating.
    From watching the O.J. Simpson trial, every American knows 
that a clean sample is vital for DNA testing. So, Question No. 
1 was: Can finished, tanned or ``dressed'' garments, even dyed 
fur, provide ``clean'' samples? Can they give accurate 
readings?
    A specialist in canine DNA testing replied:
    ``The main problem with using fur as a source of DNA is 
that the chemicals used to preserve the hide have two 
deleterious effects-1) they probably degrade most if not all of 
the DNA in a piece of hide and 2) the chemicals themselves are 
toxic to the enzymatic reaction used in the testing. . . .
    ``It is often challenging . . . to extract DNA from tanned 
leather or fur but it can be done, though it may not be 
successful with every sample. In order to provide this service 
to the industry, it would be necessary to refine the DNA 
extraction method and to build a referral data base of 
information on all species used for fur.''
    Hmm. We were told that HSUS took samples from dressed furs 
so we wonder how ``clean'' the samples were and if the DNA 
readings were accurate. But HSUS won't share the data or the 
results. Odd.
    Question No. 2: Is there a good library of DNA in existence 
now?
    Our expert replied:
    ``I do not know if any other laboratory has put together a 
DNA data base with the purpose of distinguishing fur-bearing 
animals. To do so--it would require time and money--I would say 
about 6 months and approximately $250,000. It would also 
require samples of animals other than fur (ideally blood 
samples) that you would be absolutely confident of the 
species.''
    Hmm. Does HSUS maintain a DNA library? Strange it makes no 
mention of this breakthrough.
    Question No. 3: If a clean sample could be provided, can 
DNA testing distinguish ``domesticated'' cats and dogs from 
wild or farm-raised species? Simply put, is a wolf is a fox is 
a poodle? And is a calico is a mountain lion is a bobcat, or 
what?
    Again we went to the experts:
    ``There is a type of DNA test that can distinguish species 
of animals. It is done by amplifying the cytochrome B gene and 
doing one of several forms of sequence analysis. . . . It is my 
belief that the fur of wild cats such as tigers, lions, lynx, 
etc. could be distinguished from domestic cats. There would 
obviously be a problem with cats derived from hybrids such as 
'pixiebobs' (a cross between domestic cats and bobcats).
    ``In the case of distinguishing wolf from dog, 
unfortunately dogs have descended from wolves too recently such 
that they are essentially still the same species and can not be 
distinguished by this method. However, dogs/wolves can be 
distinguished from fox, raccoon, and other canid-type species 
used for fur.''
    Thus, goods labeled as ``rabbit'' but made from the fur of 
other species would easily be exposed by DNA testing. But the 
lack of differentiation between sub-species of canines and some 
felines takes us back in time. Man's ancestors branched off 
from other primates 4-5 million years ago, with Homo sapiens 
appearing 100,000 years ago. Domestication of animals by 
humans, 10,000 years ago, is a relatively recent experiment.
    In the Kingdom of Animalia is the Class Mammalia, where 
resides the Order of Carnivora, which includes the Family 
Canidae, canines, a species we call ``dog.'' Coyotes, wolves, 
foxes, jackals, bush dog, dingo, dhole and more, canines 
include a vast array of animals. With about 21 distinct 
species, foxes, of the genus vulpes, comprise the largest 
canine group. Which one of these is ``dog''?
    The Family Felidae, felines, include domestic cats and at 
least 34 other species. Lion, tiger, jaguar, jaguarundi, 
spotted cat, lynx, bobcat, ocelot, pampas cat, puma. Which one 
of these is ``cat''?
    So, according to the experts, the Asian wild and Russian 
farm-raised raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides, and wild and 
farmed fox, vulpes, which branched off early in the canine 
family tree, could be distinguished from domesticated dogs by 
DNA testing. Wolf, coyote and Mongolian dog, however, could not 
be distinguished from domesticated dogs.
    But HSUS says it has a DNA test that tells the difference, 
in direct contradiction to the experts.

                           Crossing the Line

    Late in 1999, HSUS announced it had found figures made of 
cat fur illegally labeled ``rabbit.'' Provided a clean sample 
can be obtained, DNA testing can distinguish cat fur from 
rabbit fur. However, if the clean sample shows ``feline,'' it 
may be difficult to tell the sub-species involved. And 
absolutely no test will tell us whether a product was made from 
a cherished household ``pet'' or the result of measures to 
control feral domesticated cats.
    Consumers have the right to know exactly what they are 
purchasing, and to expect that purveyors of mislabeled products 
will be punished.
    But it is also important for consumers to understand that 
different cultures value animals in different ways, and 
incorporate animal products into their markets and selected 
animals into their homes as pets, just as Americans do.
    When crossing cultural lines and borders with trade, we 
must respect the world's diversity of opinion and carefully 
think out solutions to real issues. Otherwise, we will all end 
up in one big dog and cat fight.

                                 Notes:

    (1) Orlando Sentinel, Dec. 31, 1999, ``China Kills Cats, 
Uses Fur on Figures.'' For comparison purposes, each year in 
the US (population: 250 million), shelters euthanize and 
discard the remains of millions of domestic and feral dogs and 
cats. China has 2.5 billion people, ten times as many as the 
US.
    See also, ``What's in a name? Or, the wolf among us'' by I. 
Lehr Brishin, PhD, at www.naiaonline.org/name.htm, which 
discusses the changes in the Mammal Species of the World: A 
Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. ``In this volume, it was 
agreed that our domestic dog should be designated Canis Lupus 
instead of the more customary Canis familiaries, thereby 
confirming concsensus of the scientific community that the dog 
is indeed exactly the same species as the wolf, the species 
from with it is generally assumed to have been derived through 
the process of domestication.''
      

                                


Statement of the International Mass Retail Association, Arlington, 
Virginia

    This statement is submitted on behalf of the International 
Mass Retail Association (IMRA) which is an alliance of 
retailers and their product and service suppliers committed to 
bringing price-competitive value to the world's consumers. IMRA 
improves its members' businesses by providing industry research 
and education, government advocacy, and a unique forum for its 
members to establish relationships, solve problems, and work 
together for the benefit of the consumer and the mass retail 
industry. IMRA represents over 200 retail companies, which 
operate more than 133,000 stores worldwide and have sales of 
over $450 billion annually. IMRA represents over 600 supplier 
companies with sales totaling over $600 billion per year. 
Together, IMRA's membership represents over $1 trillion in 
sales and employs millions of workers.
    While many of the bills listed on the April 20th advisory 
do not affect IMRA members, there are three in particular that 
IMRA would like to comment on. The first two bills (H.R. 3704 
and H.R. 4337) IMRA strongly supports. The third bill, H.R. 
1622, IMRA opposes.

  H.R. 3704--Amending Chapter 95 of the HTSUS to include Dress-Up Sets

    Flimsy costumes, used in ``dress-up'' play sets are viewed 
and used as toys by children. IMRA believes that Customs has 
been correct in its longstanding view that these products are 
not complex or permanent wearing apparel, and should be 
classified in Chapter 95 of the HTSUS. Creating a new 
subcategory in Chapter 95 will reinforce what Customs has 
already been doing.
    The textile items included in play sets are not designed or 
manufactured for multiple wearings. This is why they need to be 
included in the new subcategory in Chapter 95. In addition, 
these items are not sold in the same channels of distribution 
as wearing apparel. Instead, toy stores, drug stores and 
variety stores carry these items in large numbers, and general 
merchandise retailers do not sell these items in the apparel 
departments of their stores, but, rather, in their toy 
departments.
    The dress-up items in play sets are extremely lightweight 
and inexpensive. These costume elements are intended for play, 
not as wearing apparel. In addition, playsets also frequently 
include other non-textile items, including play jewelry, magic 
wands, doctor and nurse toys, and other accessories that are 
clearly toys, not wearing apparel.
    There was an attempt during the 105th Congress to shift 
these play items into Chapters 61 and 62 which would have 
subjected them to import quotas and visas--an action that could 
have resulted in their elimination from the marketplace. 
Existing bilateral textile and apparel agreements are based on 
the assumption that these products are not wearing apparel. 
Shifting them into wearing apparel headings, without adjusting 
negotiated bilateral quota agreements will put significant 
pressure on existing import quotas. Since these products are 
extremely low-cost, it is logical to assume that foreign 
producers will have difficulty in obtaining quota for these 
items, making it impossible (or extremely uneconomical) to 
import these items. This is why these items need to be 
classified in Chapter 95.
    In addition, shifting flimsy textile components of ``dress 
up'' play sets would subject these toys to significant duties. 
In combination with quota charges, this action would 
significantly drive up the cost of these currently low-cost 
toys.

    H.R. 4337--Amending Customs Laws with Respect to Importation of 
                              Merchandise

    The trade community has never fully realized the automation 
benefits of the Customs Modernization Act, passed by congress 
in 1993. That seminal piece of legislation cleared the way for 
a new way of handling transactions that would include periodic 
payment of duties, remote filing and expedited release of 
merchandise. The Customs Modernization Act also imposed new 
obligations on importers, as part of a ``package deal'' that 
would require importers to take more ``reasonable care,'' keep 
extended records, and take responsibility for classifying 
merchandise all in return for expedited service and periodic 
filing and payment.
    Today, seven years after the enactment of the Customs 
Modernization Act, many in the trade community, including 
virtually all of IMRA's members have made significant new 
investments in Customs compliance to meet the new obligations 
of the Modernization Act. However, Customs has yet to provide 
for periodic duty payment, remote filing or expedited service.
    IMRA well recognizes that one of the main reasons Customs 
has been unable to deliver the benefits of the Modernization 
Act is because Congress has yet to fully fund a new computer 
system known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
    IMRA is confident that funding for the new computer system 
will be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2001. Consequently, we 
strongly believe that Congress should reiterate to the Customs 
Service its belief that progress must be made on the promises 
of the Customs Modernization Act.
    Chief among these promises is the requirement that the 
Customs Service move from an entry-by-entry basis to an account 
based system. Such a system would allow importers to submit 
entries and pay duties on a periodic basis rather than on an 
entry-by-entry basis, much as the Internal Revenue Service 
treats individual taxpayers. In such a system, Customs would 
rely on post-entry audits and compliance assessments to enforce 
the nation's trade laws, thereby making it much easier and 
faster for the Customs Service to identify those importers who 
are either small and inexperienced and therefore more likely to 
make entry mistakes, and those companies who are simply bad 
actors.
    IMRA therefore supports the intent of H.R. 4337, which is 
to remind the Customs Service that Congress intended to create 
a system of national accounts as part of the 1993 Modernization 
Act. IMRA recognizes, however that the full benefits of 
automation cannot be achieved without funding for the Automated 
Commercial Environment.

           H.R. 1622--The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999

    IMRA does not condone the importation of products made with 
dog or cat fur. However, we believe that HR 1622, as written 
has many shortcomings. Most notably, the bill would impose 
harsh civil and criminal penalties on American retailers who 
unwittingly purchased products that contain disguised cat or 
dog fur, which appears to IMRA to be contrary to the basic 
hierarchy of Customs penalties set forth in Section 1592.
    HR 1622 places all of the burden of proof upon the owner of 
the merchandise to prove that the merchandise does not contain 
dog or cat fur (Sec. 6 (d)). This is contrary to current 
evidentiary standards. The burden should be placed upon the 
complaining party, especially with the difficulty in 
identifying dog or cat fur once it has been dyed.
    The bill also allows for an individual to be arrested 
because of ``reasonable cause.'' This is a very subjective 
term. Reasonable cause not only needs to be defined, but must 
be as objective as possible. It also allows for warrantless 
searches without probable cause. This is clearly a violation of 
the constitution.
    Section 6 (f) allows for a private right of action where 
private citizens can commence an injunction proceeding if they 
believe that an entity is in violation of the bill. Congress 
has consistently opposed this kind of private right of action 
in customs cases because it creates severe market disruption. 
In this particular case, this provision invites anti-fur 
activists to file nuisance suits against legitimate retailers.
    The civil penalty section of the bill is very troubling. It 
allows for a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation. What 
happens when a legitimate retailer places an order for ten 
thousand gloves lined with rabbit fur, but unwittingly receives 
gloves with cat fur lining? According to the bill, the retailer 
would be subject to $250,000,000 in fines because of the 
overseas manufacturer's deception. A penalty such as this could 
bankrupt a legitimate retailer.
    One of the most troubling sections of the bill is Section 7 
(d). This section allows for a court to permanently enjoin a 
business from selling any fur products, even if the party is an 
unintentional violator.
    The bill, as it is currently written, does not take into 
account the fact that the U.S. retailer may be a victim of 
deception by an overseas manufacturer. Retailers are not in the 
business of providing fur products made from dog or cat fur and 
do not intentionally source from manufacturers who do. As the 
bill itself states, it is very difficult to distinguish dog and 
cat fur from other types of fur once it has been dyed. 
Retailers should be given the benefit of the doubt if they are 
found to have imported such products unwittingly. At best a 
hierarchy of penalties, such as currently exist for customs 
violations, should be applied in such cases.
      

                                


H.R. 2881

    To allow the collection of fees for the provision of 
customs services for the arrival of certain ferries.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3276

    To suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl chloride.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3366

    To suspend temporarily the duty on benzyl carbazate (DT-
291).
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                             Pittsburgh, PA
                                                       May 16, 2000
A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R.3366 Benzylcarbazate

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bill number H.R. 3366 has been introduced by DuPont for duty 
suspension on Benzylcarbazate for insecticide applications.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Benzylcarbazate. Bayer's 
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania and Bayer customer Alabama would benefit from tariff 
suspension on Benzylcarbazate. Benzylcarbazate is not manufactured in 
the United States but is an important ingredient in many U.S. and 
international products. Benzylcarbazate is used in the production of 
insecticides for use on cotton vegetables and fruit, to protect U.S. 
crops and as a result, the business of U.S. farmers. The products are 
also used to manufacture a new family of insect control components with 
very favorable environmental profiles
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff 
suspension for Iminodisuccinate bill number H.R. 3801. Please do not 
hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the 
event that I am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office 
(Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location 
(Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.

            Very sincerely,

                                               Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3367

    To suspend temporarily the duty on tralkoxydim formulated 
(``Achieve'').

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3368

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical KN002.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3369

    To reduce temporarily the duty on the chemical KL084.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3370

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical IN-N5297.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3371

    To reduce temporarily the duty on azoxystrobin formulated 
(``Heritage'', ``Abound'', and ``Quadris'').

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                

H.R. 3474

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Fungaflor 500 EC.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3475

    To suspend temporarily the duty on NORBLOC 7966.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3476

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Imazalil.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3604

    To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries 
in accordance with a final decision of the Department of Commerce under 
the Tariff Act of 1930.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3684

    To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow duty 
drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or Niagara 
grapes.
      

                                


                              California Association of    
                                          Winegrape Growers
                                             Sacramento, CA
                                                       May 12, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    These comments are submitted in response to the notice issued on 
April 20 by the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on 
Trade, announcing a request for written comments on miscellaneous 
corrections to trade legislation and miscellaneous duty suspension 
bills.
    These comments are on behalf of the members of the California 
Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG), who grow more than 60% of the 
tonnage of grapes crushed for wine and concentrate in California. 
Grapes crushed for concentrate represent an increasingly important 
market for Central Valley grape growers. According to the 1999 Annual 
Grape Crush Report, the volume of grapes crushed to be marketed as 
concentrate was 762,171 tons, nearly one-quarter of the total 1999 
crush.
    The following comments are directed to one bill on the April 20, 
2000 list--specifically, H.R. 3684, to amend section 313 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) to allow duty drawback for grape juice 
concentrates made from Concord or Niagara grapes.

                               Discussion

    CAWG is opposed to H.R. 3684 which is similar to H.R> 194. This 
opposition is based on the following points, all of which are detailed 
below. Enactment of H.R. 3684 would: (1) be an assault on the integrity 
of the duty drawback program; (2) establish a problematic precedent of 
alteration of the program; (3) lead to disruption in the U.S. grape 
juice concentrate market; (4) provide a unilateral trade benefit to a 
number of U.S. trading partners, without obtaining a reciprocal trade 
benefit for the U.S. winegrape industry; (5) provide a financial 
benefit to industries in other countries already receiving subsidies 
from their own countries; (6) provide a de facto subsidy to certain 
exporters; and (7) lead to losses for the U.S. Treasury.

          1. H.R. 3684 Would Alter Purpose of Drawback Program

    First, it is a misnomer to label H.R. 3684 as a ``miscellaneous 
correction to trade legislation.'' The provisions of H.R. 3684 would 
not ``correct'' any mistake now set forth in U.S. trade law. In 
contrast, H.R. 3684 would undermine and distort the purposes of the 
duty drawback program administered by the U.S. Customs Service.
    The drawback program has been a part of U.S. law since 1789 and has 
evolved over the years. While the intent of the program can be stated 
rather simply, administration of the program is complex. The program 
has been administered strictly and with extreme care by the U.S. 
Customs Service, due to the potential for abuse and erosion of U.S. 
treasury revenues.
    The U.S. Customs website provides the following description of the 
drawback program:
        The rationale of drawback has always been to encourage American 
        commerce or manufacturing, or both. It permits the American 
        manufacturer to compete in foreign markets without the handicap 
        of including in his costs, and consequently in his sales price, 
        the duty paid on imported merchandise.
    Several types of drawback are authorized by U.S. law, but H.R. 3684 
would amend only one type. H.R. 3684 references the ``manufacturing 
substitution'' drawback program. This program addresses the situation 
where a manufacturer brings in one product to make another product, and 
the manufactured product is then exported. The theory is that the 
manufacturer should not have to bear the cost of the duty on the 
imported material that forms a necessary component of the manufactured 
article. Manufacturing substitution drawback is available whether the 
imported material, or a domestic material of the ``same kind and 
quality,'' are utilized in the exported product. This version of 
drawback eliminates the need for a manufacturer to maintain separate 
inventories for imported and domestic merchandise.

A. Customs Regulations

    Customs strictly interprets and enforces the drawback program 
through its regulations at 19 CFR 191.0 et seq. These regulations 
contain extensive provisions which set forth the agency's procedures in 
administering the program. The regulations provide that to qualify as 
material of the ``same kind and quality,'' Customs will look to a 
number of standards, such as USDA grade standards, FDA standards of 
identity, and industry standards. In the case of grape juice 
concentrate, criteria of the first two types do not exist; we are not 
aware of any USDA grade standard nor any FDA standard of identity 
applicable to grape juice concentrate.
    However, as to the third test, industry standards, there are 
commonly followed practices. Two grape species represent more than 99% 
of grape production in the world and in the U.S. These two species are 
vinifera and labrusca.\1\ The two species are completely different in 
heritage, taste, yields and end uses. If buyers are desirous of 
labrusca concentrate, buyers will purchase only labrusca concentrate. 
In the industry, labrusca concentrate is not interchangeable with 
vinifera concentrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Labrusca grape species are grown in cold climate areas that are 
subject to heavy frost, including the Northeast, Northwest and North 
central regions of the U.S. Grapes from this species are used primarily 
for the production of grape juice and grape juice concentrate. All of 
the grapes produced in California are of the vinifera species, which 
are used primarily for the production of wine, although certain 
vinifera varieties are also used in the production of grape juice, 
grape concentrate, table grapes and raisins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to H.R.3684, we understand that a certain agricultural 
co-op, Welch's, wants to import vinifera (white and red) concentrate to 
make various products. However, it wishes to export only concentrate 
that is primarily from the Concord or Niagara varieties--both of which 
are of the labrusca species. These two grape varieties are grown 
primarily in the U.S. The exporter in this case wishes to receive duty 
drawback on its exports of labrusca concentrate, for the duties paid on 
the imported vinifera concentrate. As stated above, the two species are 
totally different.

B. Judicial Interpretation

    In addition to the provisions set forth in Customs regulations, the 
Court of International Trade has recently reviewed the ``same kind and 
quality'' test. The Court's decision contains this useful discussion:

        While the statute and regulations provide little, if any, 
        guidance as to the meaning of the statutory term ``same kind 
        and quality'' Customs has addressed materials it will consider 
        to satisfy the statutory requirement of ``same kind and 
        quality'' in a published ruling.See T.B. 82-36, 16 Cust. B. & 
        Dec. 97 (1982).
        The introductory sentence of T.D. 82-36 states, ``[u]nder the 
        drawback law (19 U.S.C. 1313(b)) drawback contracts have been 
        approved since 1958, permitting the substitution of one 
        domestic compound for a different imported compound when an 
        identical element is sought for use in manufacturing an 
        exported article.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ International Light Metals v. U.S., 24 F. Supp.2d 281 (CIT 
1998). (This decision has been appealed by the plaintiff.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, according to the Court of International Trade, in order to 
qualify under the manufacturing substitution program for a drawback, 
the substituted component must be ``identical to the imported product. 
The Court found that this version of drawback is meant to address 
processes where the component in question (in this case, a metal) is 
interchangeable with the imported component.
    We understand that proponents of H.R. 3684 admit that grape juice 
concentrate of a different color or quality (from the imported 
concentrate) would not qualify for drawback under the historical 
administration of the program. Color is, by comparison, an almost 
insignificant factor in relation to the fact that vinifera and labrusca 
grapes are derived from totally different species which are distinct in 
all respects. The proponents are asking Congress to change the 
fundamental nature of the program to allow drawback for types of 
exported concentrate that are not interchangeable with the imported 
product.

           2. H.R. 3684 Would Create a Problematic Precedent

    Congress should not take the step represented by H.R. 3684, as it 
would create a troubling precedent. If this legislation were accepted, 
it would be entirely appropriate for exporters of, for example, U.S.-
grown lemon juice concentrate to ask Congress to provide a duty 
drawback on their imports of orange juice concentrate on the basis that 
both products are citrus juice concentrate. Numerous other examples 
could be cited, where producers of distinct products would argue that 
the products should be deemed of the same kind and quality for purposes 
of the drawback program. For instance, the argument could be made that 
two different types of vegetables, such as broccoli and asparagus, 
should be considered to be for purposes of the drawback program. 
Adoption of H.R. 3684 would create unending requests for similar 
action.
    Different species of grapes are as distinct as different types of 
citrus. Further, there is a distinct market demand for the different 
species. The proponents of H.R. 3684 would likely admit that 
concentrate from labrusca grapes commands a premium price. At the 
current time, this price in the world market is more than double the 
value of concentrate produced from vinifera grapes.
    Simply stated, eligibility for duty drawback is a privilege that is 
earned through meeting the Congressional intent in creating the 
program, as well as Customs requirements that govern the program. Each 
drawback that is granted by Customs is a privilege because it results 
in a loss to the U.S. Treasury--a loss of the duties paid on the 
imported product.
    If adopted, H.R. 3684 would amend the drawback program--so that the 
program would provide a benefit that would be a significant departure 
from historical practice under the program.

                 3. Disruption of the Domestic Industry

    In large measure, CAWG is opposed to H.R. 3684 because of the 
disruption it could cause in the U.S. grape juice concentrate market. 
Grape juice concentrate has become a significant industry in the U.S., 
and promises to continue to grow in the coming years. Grape juice 
concentrate is especially popular in the health food sector, which is a 
rapidly growing segment of the food industry. Grape juice concentrate 
is used in drinks, frozen juice, canned juice, fruit drinks and 
preserves. It is also used as a sweetener in canned fruit, yogurt, 
cookies, cereals, candies and baby foods. The market in California's 
San Joaquin Valley for grape juice concentrate for food manufacturing 
is approximately $150 million per year.
    American growers have to attempt to compete with the sometimes 
tremendous subsidies provided by the European Union (and we believe by 
Argentina) to their grape growers. The Uruguay Round did not eliminate 
these subsidies; in fact, some of the subsidy programs in other 
countries have actually been increased since the Uruguay Round.
    If adopted, H.R. 3684, by allowing a refund of the duties paid on 
imported concentrate, would allow those volumes to enter the U.S. at a 
lower landed cost to the importer than would otherwise be the case. 
Although only the amount of imported concentrate matching the volumes 
of exported concentrate would be eligible for the drawback refund, this 
lower-cost, imported concentrate could and would either displace U.S.-
produced concentrate of a higher price, or put downward price pressure 
on the U.S.-produced product. It would also send a false signal to the 
market and could cause additional grape juice concentrate to be 
imported.
    CAWG's members currently produce more than one-half of the grapes 
which now are used for grape juice concentrate. For this reason, CAWG 
is extremely concerned about any additional product which might either 
displace or put downward price pressure on U.S.-grown grapes.
    Congress has deemed that imported grape juice concentrate should be 
subject to a set level of duty, and CAWG believes that this level 
should continue to be operative, except in those limited cases where 
the importer qualifies for duty drawback in the sense in which the 
program has been administered for years--i.e., where the exported 
product is of the same kind and quality and is interchangeable with the 
imported product.

    4. Unilateral Trade Benefit to Foreign Grape Juice Concentrate 
                               Producers

    Enactment of H.R. 3684 would also serve to provide a unilateral, 
and unreciprocated, trade benefit--indeed, a de facto tariff 
reduction--to all countries that produce grape juice concentrate and 
would like to export to the U.S. market (to the extent the grape juice 
concentrate is imported and later matched with exported volumes of 
grape juice concentrate, not of the same kind and quality). We believe 
the bill would provide an incentive for increased purchases from 
countries now subject to a tariff and reduce demand for U.S.-produced 
concentrate, particularly the type of concentrate produced in 
California.
    Of great concern is the fact that the elimination of a pre-existing 
tariff is something that is normally only provided in the course of 
trade negotiations. Such action is handled in trade negotiations for 
very good reason--so that U.S. producers and industries will obtain a 
reciprocal trade benefit of some type.
    The U.S. should not be providing beneficial duty treatment to 
potential competitors to the U.S. winegrape growing industry, without 
those countries requesting that treatment and without the U.S. 
obtaining some type of benefit in return.
    Further, when trade concessions are under consideration in the 
course of trade negotiations, very careful analysis is normally carried 
out on the impact that a possible concession would have on the U.S. 
industry in question. However, because H.R. 3684 is not framed as a 
trade concession--although the result would be the same--it appears 
that no such consideration has taken place. The Committee is obligated 
to consider this impact. This impact is addressed above in the section 
entitled ``Disruption of the Domestic Industry.''

    5. Grape Industries in Certain Other Countries Already Receive 
                               Subsidies

    Some of the main exporters to the U.S. at the present time are: 
Argentina, Spain and Italy. These three countries comprise 
approximately seventy percent of the U.S. imports of grape juice 
concentrate.
    The grape industries in Spain and Italy enjoy considerable 
subsidies already (in excess of $750 million in 1997) \3\, which 
provide them assistance to compete in global markets. There is no 
policy justification to increase the amount of effective subsidy 
available to these foreign competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Twenty-Seventh Financial Report of the Commission of the 
European Communities Concerning the European Agricultural Guidance and 
Guarantee Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the U.S. has entered into negotiations for a Free Trade 
Area of the Americas and is preparing for the next round of World Trade 
Organization (WTO) negotiations. In the WTO Round, the U.S. is 
committed to reducing all agricultural subsidies. It would be wholly 
inconsistent to, on the one hand, reward behavior that the U.S. has 
announced, on the other hand, it is committed to reducing or 
eliminating.

                         6. A De Facto Subsidy

    Although the goal of the proponent of H.R. 3684--to increase its 
exports of concentrate from U.S. grapes--is indeed laudable, it is 
trying to obtain Congressional concurrence to accomplish its goal 
through an alteration, or special exemption, to a program for which it 
does not otherwise qualify.
    If Congress were to grant this exemption by deeming the exports of 
concentrate as eligible for duty drawback, the importer/exporter would 
obtain a de facto subsidy on its export. This subsidy would be created 
because the importer/exporter could use the refunded duties to reduce 
the price of the exported product, in essence subsidizing the price of 
the exported product.
    The importer/exporter would achieve its goal with the assistance of 
all U.S. taxpayers--since the U.S. treasury is the source of drawback 
revenues. Further, if Congress were to adopt H.R. 3684, a benefit would 
be provided to one group of grape growers which growers of other 
agricultural products do not have.

Other Programs

    Given its goal, there are other programs in existence for which the 
proponent of the legislation should be applying. For instance, the 
Market Assistance Program (MAP) is administered by the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. For that program, Congress makes a decision on an 
annual basis (through the annual appropriations process) as to the 
level of U.S. tax dollars that shall be available to assist U.S. 
agricultural producers to attain new (or increase existing) export 
markets. If Congress were to enact H.R. 3684, those entities which 
would benefit from the legislation would in essence be circumventing 
the requirements, process, and budget limitations, of the MAP program.

                   7. Potential Loss to U.S. Treasury

    The volume of grape juice concentrate imported into the U.S. has 
increased substantially in recent years--from 90,736,000 liters in 1995 
(equivalent of 129,622 tons of grapes) to 180,517,000 liters in 1999 
(equivalent of 257,881 tons of grapes).\4\ In 1999, $7,943,000 in 
duties were paid on imported grape juice concentrate. Theoretically, 
ninety-nine percent (99%) of this amount could ultimately be subject to 
drawback claims (99% is the level of refund available when an export 
qualifies for manufacturing drawback). It is certainly possible that 
companies would devise ways to take advantage of the new financial 
benefit, were it to become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Based on 1999 Grape Juice Concentrate Import/Export Report by 
IV International.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If in 1999 all of the 87 million liters of U.S.-produced 
concentrate that were exported \5\ were deemed eligible for duty 
drawback, the loss of revenue to the U.S. treasury would have been $3.8 
million (based on current rate of $.044 per liter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Based on 1999 Grape Juice Concentrate Import/Export Report by 
IV International.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    For all of the above reasons, the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
House Committee on Ways and Means should not approve H.R. 3684. We 
appreciate the Committee's consideration of these comments, and we 
would be pleased to provide any additional information the Committee 
would find helpful.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Karen Ross
      

                                


                                       Giumarra Vineyards  
                                            Bakersfield, CA
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Giumarra Vineyards is a family owned farming company located in the 
southern San Joaquin Valley of California, near Bakersfield. We are one 
of California's largest producers of grape concentrate as well as being 
a wine producer, table grape grower and producer of other agricultural 
crops. We are the largest employer in Kern County, California, with 
over 4000 employees -many of whom depend on our grape concentrate 
business for their employment.
    As a company whose economic success depends in large part on this 
grape concentrate business, we strongly oppose HR 3684 which allows for 
duty drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or Niagara 
grapes. HR 3684 would cause an increase in the importation of foreign 
concentrate -an increase that would be artificially motivated by the 
duty drawback rather than by normal economic considerations. This 
increase will result in a decrease in the value and use of U.S. grown 
grapes to the great economic disadvantage of U.S. growers and U.S. 
workers.
    For this reason, then, as well as the reasons set forth in the May 
12, 2000, letter from the California Association of Winegrape Growers 
(CAWG) to the committee on Ways and Means, Giumarra Vineyards strongly 
opposes H.R. 3684 and respectfully requests that the Committee not 
approve H.R. 3684.
            Sincerely yours,
                                             John Giumarra,
                                                     Vice President
      

                                

                            National Grape Corperative Inc.
                                              Westfield, NY
                                                       May 18, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing to support H. R. 3684, a bill which will amend the 
customs duty drawback law and which will assist exports of products 
made with American Concord and Niagara grapes.
    I am a farmer in Washington where I have grown Concord and Niagara 
grapes for over 17 years. I am also a member of the board of directors 
of National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc. In addition to the 
juice grapes, I also grow wine grapes and I am a board member of the 
Washington State Wine Commission as well as a past president of the 
Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers.
    This bill will help growers of Concord and Niagara grapes by 
allowing customs duty drawback on exports of products containing juice 
concentrate made from our grapes. This bill is important to growers in 
Washington where most of these products are manufactured and exported 
from the Port of Seattle to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries.
    H.R. 3684 will have no effect on the domestic market for grape 
juice concentrate. This amendment, however, will help to increase 
export by allowing duty drawback on exported grape juice products grown 
and manufactured in the United States. Increased exports of U.S. 
Concord and Niagara grape concentrate will increase overall demand for 
all domestic grape juice products.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment on this bill. Please approve 
H. R. 3684 as part of the next miscellaneous trade bill.

            Sincerely,

                                         Richard A. Boushey
      

                                


                            National Grape Cooperative Inc.
                                                Concord, MA
                                                       May 18, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing to support H. R. 3684, a bill which will amend the 
customs duty drawback law and which will assist exports of products 
made with American Concord and Niagara grapes.
    I am a farmer in Washington where I have grown Concord and Niagara 
grapes for over 30 years. I am also president of the National Grape 
Cooperative Association, Inc. and the chairman of the board of 
directors of Welch Foods, Inc., A Cooperative.
    Welch's serves its owner-growers by providing a predictable, 
growing market for their Concord and Niagara grapes. Welch's has been 
recognized as one of the most successful agricultural cooperatives in 
the country. That success is based on growing the domestic and 
international markets for our grapes.
    This bill will help growers of Concord and Niagara grapes by 
allowing customs duty drawback on exports of products containing juice 
concentrate made from our grapes. This bill is important to growers in 
Washington where most of these products are manufactured and exported 
from the Port of Seattle to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries.
    H.R. 3684 will have no effect on the domestic market for grape 
juice concentrate. This amendment, however, will help to increase 
exports by allowing duty drawback on exported grape juice products 
grown and manufactured in the United States. Increased exports of U.S. 
Concord and Niagara grape concentrate will increase overall demand for 
grape juice products.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment on this bill. Please approve 
H. R. 3684 as part of the next miscellaneous trade bill.

            Sincerely,

                                         Fredrick P. Kilian
                                                          President
                                              Chairman of the Board
                                    Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative
      

                                


                            National Grape Cooperative Inc.
                                                Concord, MA
                                                       May 15, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative (Welch's) and the National Grape 
Cooperative Association, Inc. are pleased to support H. R. 3684 as part 
of the next miscellaneous tariff and trade bill. This technical 
amendment of the duty drawback law is specifically intended to benefit 
exports of products manufactured in the United States with the American 
Concord and Niagara varieties of grapes.
    The effect of this amendment will be to increase exports of 
products made from Concord and Niagara grapes grown in Washington, New 
York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, and to give them equal treatment 
under the drawback law to exported products made from vinifera grapes 
typically grown in California.
    Welch's does not believe that this bill will injure any U. S. grape 
growers and that the bill will assist exports.

                              Background:

    Welch's is the processing and marketing affiliated cooperative of 
the National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc., whose owner-growers 
supply Welch's with its principal raw products, Concord and Niagara 
Grapes. The Cooperative is made up of 1,497 growers who cultivate over 
44,000 acres of vineyards in Michigan, New York, Ontario-Canada, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and Washington. Welch's manufacturing plants are located 
in Lawton, Michigan; North East, Pennsylvania; Westfield, New York; and 
Grandview and Kennewick Washington.
    Welch's had its beginnings in 1869 when Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch 
successfully processed an unfermented Concord grape wine that could be 
used in his church's communion service. Headquartered in Concord, 
Massachusetts, Welch's is the worlds leading marketer of Concord and 
Niagara grape-based products, including grape juice and jelly.
    These products are sold by the food store, special markets, food 
service, industrial and military, licensing and international divisions 
throughout the United States and in more than 30 countries around the 
world. In its most recently completed fiscal year, Welch's sales 
totaled over $600 million.
    Welch's is largely responsible for developing the retail market for 
grape juice products in the United States. All American grape growers 
and grape juice producers have benefited from this market development 
by Welch's, including growers and producers of vinifera grape juice 
concentrates in California and other states.
    The mission of the Company as a cooperative is to maximize the 
long-term value of its growers and to provide a reliable market for 
their grapes through excellence in product quality, customer service, 
market growth and customer satisfaction. To this end, Welch's has been 
working with local distributors and manufacturers in Japan and other 
Pacific Rim countries since the 1970's. This effort has resulted in a 
substantial market for our exports of grape juice concentrate and other 
products manufactured in the United States using American Concord and 
Niagara grapes.
    Welch's has also dramatically expanded its product line and 
distribution methods to insure its long term growth and demand for 
products made from the grapes grown by its cooperative members. This 
growth, together with year to year crop variations, requires the 
Company to purchase large quantities of grape juice concentrates from 
producers in California. Some concentrate is also purchased from 
foreign suppliers.
    Under the Customs Duty Drawback law [Section 313 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1313(b)] products manufactured in the United States 
and then exported are eligible for a refund of customs duties (duty 
drawback) if they contain imported ingredients, or domestic ingredients 
of the ``same kind.'' The U.S. Customs Service has advised Welch's that 
duty paid on imported concentrates, which are mostly white in color, 
cannot be claimed against the Company's exported products, which are 
mostly purple in color. This technical determination denies Welch's a 
significant export incentive and benefit.
    Exports of grape juice concentrates produced from the vinifera 
grapes typically grown in California are already considered by Customs 
to be of the ``same kind'' as foreign concentrates. Duty drawback is 
allowed on exports of such concentrates.

                     Intent of Proposed Amendment:

    The proposed amendment is intended to replace Customs' restrictive 
interpretation by allowing duty drawback on grape juice concentrates 
made from Concord or Niagara grapes. This amendment and the underlying 
section of the law (19 U.S.C. 1313(b)) apply only to exported grape 
juice-based products that are manufactured in the United States. As 
such, the proposed amendment is designed to bring U.S. Customs 
treatment of Concord and Niagara grape juice concentrates into 
conformance with the underlying goals of duty drawback: i.e., to 
promote U.S. manufacturing and export sales.

                    Concerns of California Growers:

    Some grape growers in California have expressed concern that this 
amendment to the drawback law will disrupt the U. S. grape juice 
concentrate market. The amendment will have no effect on the domestic 
market for grape juice concentrate except to the extent that it 
increases exports and thereby increases overall demand for grape juice 
products.
    Our principal business objective is to provide a predictable, 
growing market for our products. Welch's is, after all, an agricultural 
cooperative owned by grape farmers. We have been recognized as one of 
the most successful agricultural cooperatives in the country. Our 
success is based on growing our markets in the United States and 
abroad.
    Welch's has funded most of the national and international 
advertisement for grape juice products since as early as the early 
1900's. All growers and producers of grape juice products in the United 
States have benefited from our market development. California growers 
and concentrate producers have seen substantial, direct benefits as 
Welch's purchases large quantities of concentrate from them.
    No foreign producer will receive any direct benefit on any product 
that it sells into the U. S. market. The duty drawback law allows 
refunds of duties when products are exported. The amendment will 
benefit U. S. manufacturers of products using Concord and Niagara 
grapes that are exported. It will make those exported products more 
competitive in foreign, not U. S., markets.

                              Conclusion:

    For the above reasons, we ask the Subcommittee on Trade to approve 
H. R. 3684. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this 
bill.

            Sincerely,
                                               Vivian Tseng
                      Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
                                    Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative
      

                                


Statement of the National Juice Products Association

    Pursuant to the April 20, 2000 advisory by the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the National Juice 
Products Association (``NJPA'') submits the following statement 
for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the 
printed record. The statement briefly comments on H.R. 3684, a 
bill to amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow 
duty drawback for grape juice concentrates made from Concord or 
Niagara grapes. The statement also addresses the more 
fundamental issue of how Customs is administering the drawback 
program to the detriment of the U.S. juice producing industry.
    NJPA is a national trade association comprised of over 70 
juice growers and processors located throughout the United 
States. See membership list at Attachment 1. A number of NJPA 
members import concentrated juice products for manufacturing 
and these members are heavily reliant on the drawback program 
to maintain the competitiveness of their domestic processing 
operations, particularly in foreign markets.
    NJPA believes that H.R. 3684 is symptomatic of a 
fundamental problem in the implementation of the drawback 
statute by the U.S. Customs Service, including the most recent 
amendments to that statute. Through these comments, NJPA hopes 
to direct the attention of the Committee to the need to address 
this issue or risk jeopardizing the continued ability of U.S. 
juice processors to compete in overseas markets.

                        1. Summary of H.R. 3684

    H.R. 3684 would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to authorize 
the substitution of certain grape juice concentrate regardless 
of color, variety, or any other characteristic for purposes of 
the drawback of import duties on such products. The legislation 
is rooted in Customs' narrow construction of the substitution 
provisions of the manufacturing drawback statute (19 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1313(b)).
    NJPA does not oppose this legislation. NJPA believes, 
however, that the Committee needs to consider the more 
fundamental issue of how Customs is implementing the drawback 
statute, to the extent the law permits the substitution of 
imported and domestic merchandise. This issue arises, in 
particular, in connection with the filing of unused merchandise 
substitution drawback claims, which is discussed next.

     2. Substitution of Juice Concentrates in the Filing of Unused 
                Merchandise Substitution Drawback Claims

    The Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act (Mod Act) 
established a new and more liberal standard of substitution for 
purposes of claiming drawback under the unused merchandise substitution 
drawback provision set forth in section 313(j)(2) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(j)(2). The new standard, commercial 
interchangeability, replaced the narrow standard of fungibility, which 
severely limited the use of unused merchandise substitution drawback 
(previously substitution same condition drawback) under the pre-Mod Act 
drawback regime.
    In determining whether two articles are commercially 
interchangeable for drawback purposes, Congress set forth in the 
legislative history to the Mod Act certain criteria to be considered 
including, but not limited to, governmental and industry standards, 
part numbers, tariff classification and relative values. The standard 
of commercial interchangeability was intended by Congress to more 
closely align the administration of the drawback law with commercial 
realities. Unfortunately, Customs' application of the new standard to 
the juice producing industry has been fraught with problems. The 
problem arises because, for a number of juice products, there exist no 
governmental and industry standards that would facilitate a commercial 
interchangeability analysis. Similarly, the relative values that are 
reflective of market pricing in the juice producing industry can vary 
for a number of reasons that have little or nothing to do with the 
quality or commercial substitutability of the product. The reasons 
might include fluctuations in supply, weather conditions, or the 
seasonality of various types of fruits. The absence of governmental 
standards and the problems inherent in a relative value analysis have, 
therefore, virtually eliminated the availability of unused merchandise 
substitution drawback to the juice producing industry, notwithstanding 
the intent of Congress to increase its availability and enhance U.S. 
producers' ability to export their products.
    NJPA, therefore, urges Congress to amend the drawback statute to 
accomplish the goals of the Mod Act. NJPA does not seek a change in the 
standard of commercial interchangeability but, rather, a change in the 
statute to recognize that specific concentrated juice products for 
manufacturing, whether they are produced domestically or overseas, are 
bulk commodities that are commercially interchangeable. With respect to 
concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, the one juice product for 
which a recognized governmental standard does exist, the USDA grading 
system is the single most important factor upon which COJM is traded. 
An amendment that therefore defines commercial interchangeability for 
purposes of COJM on the basis of the standards of identity that 
comprise the USDA grading system would be of great benefit. Thus, for 
example, imported COJM that is rated Grade A under the USDA grading 
system would be deemed commercially interchangeable with domestic, 
duty-paid or duty free merchandise that is rated Grade A, provided that 
the products also fall within the range of 93-96 for total USDA scores 
(based on color, defects and flavor). Drawback could be claimed on the 
exportation of domestic, duty-paid or duty free Grade A COJM (with USDA 
scores in the range of 93-96), provided that the other requirements of 
the drawback law are met.
    With respect to other juice products, unused merchandise 
substitution drawback should be permitted based on the existence of the 
identical 8-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers that define them.

                             3. Conclusion

    The concerns reflected in H.R. 3684 are merely symptomatic 
of a more fundamental problem with the administration of the 
drawback program by U.S. Customs with respect to the entire 
U.S. juice producing industry. The problem is caused by 
Customs' narrow application of the legal standard for 
substitution, both with respect to manufacturing and unused 
merchandise drawback. The situation is particularly troublesome 
with respect to unused merchandise drawback, where Congress has 
recently established a new and more liberal standard, which 
Customs has refused to properly implement. Even the courts have 
recently rejected Customs' narrow application of the standard. 
SeeTexport Oil Company v. United States, Slip. Op. 98-1352,-
1353, -1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    We respectfully ask that Congress and this Committee 
revisit these issues, or the competitiveness of the U.S. juice 
producing industry in world markets will be severely 
undermined.
                                                      Atttachment 1

National Juice Products Association

                            Regular Members

Agrigold Juice Products
A. Lassonde, Inc.
American Fruit Processors
Americana Juice Products
Bascitrus Agro Industria
Camerican, A Con-Agra Co.
Canadaigua Concentrates
Cargill Citro-America
Caulkins Indiantown Cit.
CCPA/Valley Foods
Chiquita Brands, Int'l
Citrofrut, S.A.
Citrosol, S.A. De C.V.
Citrosuco North America
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A.
Citrus Belle, Div. A. Duda
Citrus Products, Inc.
Citrus World, Inc.
Clement Pappas & Co., Inc.
Cliffstar Corporation
Coca-Cola Foods
Confrutta, S.A.
Country Pure Foods
Cutrale Citrus Juices USA
Del Monte Foods
Del Oro, S.A.
Delano Growers Grape
Dinter GMBH
Dole Packaged Foods
Farmland Dairies, Inc.
Florida Flavors, Inc.
Flavors From Florida
Florida Global Citrus Ltd.
Golden Gem Growers, Inc.
Givadaun Roure
Gregory Packaging Int'l
H.J. Heinz Company
Holly Hill Fruit Products
Home Juice Company
Johanna Farms, Inc.
Jugos Concentrados, S.A.
Jugos Del Sur, S.A.
Juguera Veracruzana, S.A.
The Kroger Co.
Le Vignoble, S.A.
Lykes Pasco, Inc.
McCain Citrus, Inc.
Nestle
Northland Cranberries, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries
Old Orchard Brands
Olympic Foods, Inc.
Orange-Co., Inc.
Orfiva, S.A.
Peace River Citrus Prod.
Pepsico, Inc.
Sabroso Company
San Joaquin Valley
Silver Springs Citrus Coop.
Sociedad Cooperativa
Sunbase U.S.A., Inc.
Sundor Brands, Inc.
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
Sun Pac Foods, Inc.
Sunpure
Tecnovin Do Brasil Icie, Ltda
Texas Citrus Exchange
Ticofrut, S.A.
Tree Top, Inc.
Tropicana Products, Inc.
United States Sugar Corp.
Ventura Coastal Corp.
Very Fine Products, Inc.
Vicente Trapani, S.A.
Vie Del Company
Vita-Pakt Citrus Prod. Co.
Welch's
Winter Garden Citrus

National Juice Products Association

                           Associate Members

A.G. Edwards & Sons
A.M. Beebe Company
American National Can
Automatic Machinery
B.A. Carlson of Fla.
Bowen Juices Int'l
Bradford Company
Brown International
Cargill Investor Services
Cerestar
Champion International
Citrico, Inc.
Citrus Assoc. N.Y. Cotton
Combibloc
Continental Plastic
Daystar Robinson Int'l
Directus International
Ecolab-Food and Bev. Div.
Eni Laboratories
Enerfab
Elopak, Inc.
Export Packers Co. Ltd.
Fabri-Kal Corp.
Ferreiro and Company
Fimat Futures USA, Inc.
Fleming Packaging
Florida Bulk Sales
Florida Worldwide Cit.
FMC Corporation
FMC do Brasil
G.B. International, Inc.
Graham Packaging Company
Harris Hollow Froz. Fruit
Hartog Foods Int'l
International Paper
Jefferson Smurfit Corp.
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Kendall Frozen Fruits
Leeward Resources
Koch Membrane
Merrill, Lynch, etc.
Miller & Smith Foods
Oakley Groves, Inc.
Paine Webber
Pittra Incorporated
Potomac Foods of VA
Premier Juices, Inc.
Purcell & Assoc.
Purkel Products, Inc.
Ryan Trading Corp.
Scholle Corp.
Sethness-Greenleaf
Silgan Containers
Smith Barney Shearson
Sonoco Products Co.
Tetra-Pak, Inc.
Vincent Corporation
White Cap, Inc.
      

                                


Statement of Hon. Bill Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the 
State of California

                      In Opposition to H. R. 3684

    I cannot support H. R. 3684 because it undermines the rules 
for duty drawback and fundamentally changes the nature of the 
program into a new agricultural export subsidy. For all 
practical purposes, it would have the same effect as H.R. 194, 
a drawback proposal which I continue to oppose.
    The drawback rules are intended to promote U.S. trade. 
Drawback prevents duties on inputs used to create U.S. export 
goods from becoming a drag on those goods' international sales. 
By providing drawback, current law recognizes that the imports 
or an equivalent amount of U.S. product will be returned to 
international commerce.
    H. R. 3684 and H.R. 194 would allow exporters of American 
grape juice concentrate to obtain refunds of duties paid on 
imported concentrate even though the concentrates exported and 
imported are not the same product. The bill would permit an 
exporter of grape juice concentrate to obtain duty refunds in 
cases where American Concord or Niagara grape juice concentrate 
had been exported and other grape juice concentrate imported.
    What H. R. 3684 creates is a new form of export subsidy. 
The trade does not consider the Concord or Niagara grape 
concentrates to be the commercial equivalent of other red or 
white grape concentrates. Concord and Niagara juices have a 
unique taste. In fact, well over 90% of the world's production 
of both Concord and Niagara grapes occurs in the United States. 
As a result, enactment of H.R. 3684 would create an incentive 
to export American Concord and Niagara grape juice concentrates 
by transferring duties on imported grape concentrates to the 
exporter. Like H. R. 194, H.R. 3684 would thus allow U.S. 
concentrate exporters the unique benefit of being rewarded by 
the U.S. Treasury for having exported a product that is not the 
commercial equivalent of the product being imported. American 
industries exporting other products are certain to seek similar 
treatment.
    Export subsidies seriously distort international trade. At 
a time when the United States is seeking to improve the World 
Trade Organization trade regimes, it would not be wise to adopt 
a new means of subsidizing some farm exports. As a result, I 
must oppose H. R. 3684.
      

                                


H.R. 3704

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States with respect to certain toys.

       see International Mass Retail Association, under H.R. 1622

      

                                


                 American Apparel Manufacturers Association
                                              Arlington, VA
                                                       May 17, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

                             Ref: No. TR-20

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of the American Apparel Manufacturers 
Association, the national trade association of the apparel 
industry, I am writing to express our industry's perspectives 
on several pieces of legislation currently pending before the 
Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee for possible consideration in 
an upcoming miscellaneous duty bill.

                           1. HR 3704/S 2128

AAMA Position: Opposed.

    The legislation seeks to reclassify certain costumes or 
dress-up outfits as toys, even when they are made of textile 
materials, simply by packaging them with toys and other 
accessories. When classified as toys, such apparel would then 
enter the United States duty and quota free. AAMA is concerned 
that this change would create an unintentional ``back door'' 
through which many kinds of garments could enter duty and quota 
free, merely by being packaged with toys and marketed as 
``dress up sets.'' If Congress intends to create duty and quota 
free trade in apparel, it should do so as the result of a 
determined public policy and not as the accidental consequence 
of a marketing tool.
    In addition, the proposal effectively drops the duty on 
certain kinds of finished garments, while leaving intact the 
duty on the component textile parts. Such a change constitutes 
a tariff inversion that effectively subsidizes foreign 
production at the expense of domestic manufacturers. We find no 
compelling reason to create such a tariff inversion with these 
products in this manner.
    Finally, at least one AAMA member who makes costumes in the 
United States has expressed explicit opposition to this 
legislation, stating its enactment and the competitive 
disadvantage to which it will subject them will cause 
irreparable harm.

                           2. HR 4229/S. 2245

AAMA Position: Supports

    This legislation corrects and updates a definition for 
Harris Tweed wool. This change is technical in nature, but is 
necessary so as to avoid inadvertent discrimination against the 
import of the affected HTS lines

                               3. HR 4337

AAMA Position: Supports

    This legislation makes changes necessary to implement the 
Entry Revision Project (ERP) proposal, promulgated by the U.S. 
Customs Service. ERP is intended to streamline and simplify the 
entry process, and to bring customs processes in line with 
modern business practices. AAMA strongly supports efforts to 
simplify customs processes, especially in the area of textiles 
and apparel where documentation requirements are unusually 
burdensome. Customs has signaled that, for the purposes of the 
new authority, treatment of textile and apparel imports will be 
based on the same criteria as other sectors, subject to other 
statutory requirements. On the basis of that understanding, 
AAMA endorses HR 4337.
    Thank you. Please contact me on 703-524-1864 if you have 
any further questions.

            Sincerely,

                                              Stephen Lamar
                                     Director, Government Relations
      

                                


                   American Textile Manufacturers Institute
                                             Washington, DC
                                                       May 16, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
    The American Textile Manufactures Institute (ATMI), the 
national association of the domestic textile mill products 
industry, offers the following comments regarding H.R. 3704, a 
bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States with respect to certain toys.
    The effect of this bill would be to have costumes made of 
fabric--a textile material--treated as ``other toys'' and not 
subject to import duty or the quantitative restraints governing 
imports of textile and apparel products until January 1, 2005. 
ATMI is strongly opposed to this proposed legislation on the 
grounds that it flies in the face of past Congressional intent 
and would convey substantial benefits--unilaterally--to an 
undeserving trading partner.
    Costumes, whether they be for Halloween, parties, 
children's play or any other activity, are not ``other toys.'' 
They are made of fabric and worn on the body. Thus, they are 
wearing apparel, pure and simple. Imported wearing apparel is 
subject to duty and, where appreciable, quantitative restraint 
-quotas. Through eight rounds of multilateral trade 
negotiations convened under the (former) General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Congress had the opportunity to 
eliminate duty on wearing apparel and declined, with good 
reason, to do so. Now it is confronted with a bill which asks 
Congress to overturn its policy of fifty years' standing.
    Imports of wearing apparel are also subject to various 
restraints maintained under the World Trade Organization 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing until 2005. Congress ought 
not to, with respect to the apparel items in question, 
invalidate a multilateral agreement painstakingly negotiated by 
the United States and nearly one hundred other countries.
    Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of H.R. 3704, however, 
is the primary beneficiary. The great majority of costumes 
imported into the United States are made in China. China has 
done nothing to warrant the United States' providing it with 
benefits worth tens of millions of dollars.
    In fact, China's actions with respect to trade in textiles 
and apparel warrant the most severe opprobrium, not a generous 
reward. China has and continues to transship billions of 
dollars' worth of textiles and apparel to the U.S. in order to 
avoid its mutually agreed quotas. Chinese exporters (most often 
the Government of China), in collaboration with dishonest 
American importers, have committed every other kind of Customs 
fraud there is. China subsidizes and dumps textiles in the 
United States. China has stolen American textile designs and 
patterns. One is hard pressed to find an offense China has not 
committed.
    Domestic producers of cloth costumes operate in the United 
States despite China's past efforts to drive them all out of 
business. ATMI members supply fabric to these domestic costume 
manufacturers.
    If H.R. 3704 becomes law, these remaining manufacturers 
will be driven out of business, many jobs lost and the domestic 
textile industry will lose a valued customer. Congress should 
not allow this to happen.

            Sincerely,

                                              Carlos Moore,
                                           Executive Vice President
      

                                


Statement of Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, California

    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in 
connection with the April 20 request for public comment by the 
House Committee on Ways and Means regarding the package of 
miscellaneous trade bills being prepared by the committee. 
Mattel strongly supports the inclusion in this package of 
legislation which would require the U.S. Customs Service to 
classify all ``dress-up sets and outfits, marketed year-round 
for the amusement of children in role-play activity, whether or 
not of textile materials and parts and accessories thereof,'' 
as toys in subheading 9503.70.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This legislation was 
introduced by Rep. Xavier Becerra as H.R. 3704 on February 29, 
2000.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the 
world's largest toy company, with 1999 sales of $5.5 billion in 
over 150 countries. The company has manufacturing, distribution 
and sales operations in the United States and 35 other 
countries, with over 7,700 U.S. employees and a global 
workforce of 31,000.
    Mattel, like many other U.S. toy companies, imports and 
markets dress-up sets as part of its broader line of toy 
products. There is no known production of dress-up sets in the 
United States.
    The dress-up sets addressed by H.R. 3704 are designed, 
marketed and sold year round for the amusement of children in 
role-playing activities. They are imported by toy companies and 
others, and are marketed principally through toy stores and toy 
departments of retail stores.
    The products to which H.R. 3704 relates consist of various 
assortments of articles packaged together for retail sale, to 
permit a child to play doctor, nurse, grown-up lady, ballerina, 
mermaid, actress, model, bride, princess, cheerleader, or any 
other activity or role which children enjoy emulating in role-
playing activities.
    The composition of these sets varies widely, and includes 
an assortment of articles to permit a child to play the role 
selected. These sets usually include any of a variety of 
accessories, as appropriate to the intended use, such as 
ballerina slippers, tiaras, apparel, gloves, collars, books, 
doctor and nurse bags and instruments, and cosmetic kits for 
model.
    Dress-up sets differ materially from Halloween costumes and 
costumes for other festive occasions which are sold seasonally, 
prior to various holidays such as Halloween, Christmas, Easter, 
and other special occasions, and which are sold primarily 
without accompanying accessories, other than possibly masks, 
for use solely on the particular festive occasion.
    Various importations of dress-up sets have been classified 
by the U.S. Customs Service under the duty-free provision for 
``toys put up in sets or outfits,'' as provided for under HTS 
9503.70, or under the duty-free provision for ``festive, 
carnival or other entertainment articles,'' as provided for 
under HTS 9505. H.R. 3704 would clarify and confirm the 
correctness of the classification of dress-up sets composed of 
various articles put up in sets or outfits for retail sale for 
the use and amusement of children in role playing, under the 
provision for ``toys put up in sets or outfits'' (HTS 9503.70).
    Enactment of H.R. 3704 would assist Customs officers in 
distinguishing dress-up sets from costumes, which usually 
consist of more elaborate complete articles of wearing apparel 
without accessories, other than possibly masks. It would also 
confirm that dress-up sets represent a separate class of 
products recognized in the trade and commerce of the United 
States, which are distinguishable from the products which are 
the subject of certain litigation pending before the U.S. Court 
of International Trade involving whether ``costumes'' are 
classifiable as festive, carnival or other entertainment 
articles, or as articles of wearing apparel.
    Please feel free to contact us should the Committee have 
any questions regarding this matter.
      

                                


                                    Rubie's Costume Company
                                          Richmond Hill, NY
                                                       May 16, 2000
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
233 Cannon House Ofc. Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515-1308

Re: Technical Corrections to the U.S. Trade Laws And Miscellaneous Duty 
                            Suspension Bills

Dear Mr. Chairman:
    This responds to your request for comments regarding the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension bills 
now before the Committee. Specifically, as President of Rubie's Costume 
Co., the largest manufacturer of costumes in the United States, I write 
in opposition to H.R. 3704. Ostensibly limited only to so-called 
``dress-up sets,'' this bill would allow a much wider range of foreign-
made textile garments to enter into the United States, duty-free and 
not subject to quota. This would occur because as drafted, importers 
could use the proposed new classification to enter textile items, 
including costumes, as ``dress-up sets.''
    Currently, the U.S. Customs Service treats dress-up sets as 
consisting of ``a combination of articles, most of which are toys . . . 
. Thus, a police dress-up set would consist of a badge, toy gun, and 
toy handcuffs.'' To be classified as a dress-up set, a retail item must 
not include ``wearing apparel-type items'' made of textiles. See 
Customs Ruling NYB88764. For example, Customs has stated that ``a 
ballerina dress-up set would be limited to her shoes and head piece. 
The presence of her tutu makes the retail package a costume.'' In 
short, dress-up sets are currently limited to products which are not 
considered to be costumes, or other items of apparel.
    However, by the terms of H.R. 3704, dress-up sets could be 
construed to include a wide range of textile products, including 
costumes. The bill specifically defines dress-up sets as including 
items ``whether or not of textile material.'' As such, costumes made of 
textile material, which are currently subject to duty and quota 
requirements, could be entered duty free as a dress-up set. This 
represents a radical, and I believe, unintended, departure from the 
ways such products are currently classified.
    Passage of this bill would damage not only domestic costume 
manufacturers, but producers of other textile products as well. For 
instance, a child's theme pajamas, like a cowboy, could become a dress-
up set by packaging the pajamas with a few accessories. The same result 
would obtain with respect to T-shirts and a variety of other textile 
garments.
    What is proposed in H.R. 3704 could hardly be characterized as a 
``technical correction.'' On the contrary, it represents a fundamental 
change in the way garments made of textiles are classified for tariff 
purposes. It would result in serious economic injury to the domestic 
costume industry and to the thousands of workers it employs in the 
United States. I urge you to eliminate this provision from the 
Miscellaneous Tariff bill.

            Very truly yours,

                                      Marc Beige, President
                                           Rubie's Costume Co. Inc.
      

                                


                                   Toy Association of      
                                        Southern California
                                            Los Angeles, CA
                                                       May 17, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

                  Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3704

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    In response to the Committee's Release No. TR-20 of April 20, 2000, 
The Toy Association of Southern California is pleased to submit its 
comments in support of H.R. 3704, an act to insure that toys known in 
the toy industry as ``dress-up sets,'' offered at retail year-round for 
amusement of children in role-playing, will be classified for tariff 
purposes in Chapter 95, Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United 
States [HTSUS].
    Southern California is home to over 500 toy companies. The Toy 
Association of Southern California is the largest trade group in 
California representing the toy industry, and its members include 
manufacturers, importers, and distributors of toys in the greater Los 
Angeles area.
    H.R. 3704 would safeguard the interests of these and other toy 
companies located throughout the United States. The bill would codify 
the Customs Service's existing practice of classifying children's 
dress-up sets in Chapter 95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the 
United States (HTSUS), thereby ensuring that imports of these articles 
continue to receive the duty-free and quota-free treatment they 
currently enjoy. For over 50 years, the toy industry has manufactured 
and marketed dress-up sets or outfits consisting of numerous articles 
(including textile and apparel articles) used for amusement by children 
in role-playing.
    During the last several years, one company which manufactures and 
imports costumes and not dress-up sets has attempted to insure that all 
costumes and dress-up sets containing any textile components are 
classified for tariff purposes as textiles and apparel in Chapters 61 
and 62, HTSUS, which cover wearing apparel. This would subject dress-up 
sets, which are generally recognized as not being normal articles of 
wearing apparel, to high duties and tight quotas, requiring costly 
textile visas. This would price these articles out of the market, above 
prices consumers are willing to pay for play articles. H.R. 3704 would 
guard against that result, thereby protecting the interests of U.S. toy 
companies and consumers.
    Inasmuch as the toy industry regards dress-up sets or outfits 
marketed year round for amusement of children in role-playing, as toys, 
our Association fully supports H.R. 3704, and asks that it be included 
in any miscellaneous trade bill prepared by the Committee for 
consideration by Congress during its present session.
            Very truly yours,

                                                Leeton Lee,
                                                          President
      

                                


H.R. 3714

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DEMT.
      

                                


                              Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.    
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                       May 16, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means May 16, 2000
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Subject: H.R. 3714--A bill to extend the duty suspension on DEMT

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of DEMT. Bayer's Industrial 
Chemicals Division, headquartered, and with major import operations in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania would benefit from the extension of the tariff 
suspension on DEMT.
    Bayer AG in Uerdingen, Germany produces DEMT, which is imported by 
Bayer Corporation. Bayer Corporation sells the imported DEMT to Eastman 
Chemical in Kingsport, TN. Eastman Chemical, in turn, uses DEMT to make 
color developers for photographic film. Color developers applied to 
film, precipitate film development. According to Eastman, approximately 
100 jobs are devoted to color developers, which could be adversely 
impacted if the DEMT tariff suspension is not renewed. There are no 
domestic suppliers of DEMT. DEMT is also competitively produced in 
India. Finished color developers are currently being imported from 
China. Extending the DEMT tariff suspension would promote the domestic 
production of color developers. The DEMT tariff suspension would also 
assist domestic color developer producers in being competitive with 
color developer manufacturers in China.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding extending the tariff 
suspension for DEMT, proposed in H.R. 3714. Please do not hesitate to 
contact me at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I 
am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-
756-3773) or Karen Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-
777-2058) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                         Stephen R. Johnsen
      

                                


H.R. 3715

    To revise the article description for monochrome glass 
envelopes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3716

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain ultraviolet 
dye.
      

                                


Statement of Honeywell International Inc.

                               H.R. 3716

    Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3716, introduced by Representative 
Robert Matsui of California. This measure provides for temporary 
suspension of the U.S. import duty on a certain ultraviolet dye, 
classified under 2931.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS).
    Granting a suspension of the duty on the product subject to this 
legislation is justified and appropriate. To our knowledge there is no 
U.S. commercial production of the exact product in question. For this 
reason passage of H.R. 3716, while having a positive impact on the 
competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.

                        Description of Honeywell

    Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and 
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with 
aerospace products and services; control technologies for 
buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; power 
generation systems; specialty chemicals; fibers; plastics; and 
electronic and advanced materials. Honeywell was formed by the 
December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc. and Honeywell Inc.
    The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, 
and Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. 
Honeywell employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries 
and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol 
HON, as well as on the London, Chicago and Pacific stock 
exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow 
Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the 
Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

                Description of the Product and Its Uses

    This compound can be added to certain formulations to 
perform as an ultraviolet light absorbing dye. The compound has 
been custom designed by Honeywell for use in proprietary 
Honeywell formulations.

    Granting Suspension of Duty on This Ultraviolet Dye is Warranted

    There is no U.S. commercial production of the product 
subject to this legislation. Because of the product's strictly 
proprietary nature, we are certain Honeywell is the only 
worldwide producer and importer of this dye. Further, based on 
import projections for this product for the period covered by 
H.R. 3716, this legislation also complies with the Committee's 
``no-cost'' requirement.

                                Summary

    There is no U.S. commercial production of the compound on 
which suspension of duty is being sought. This legislation also 
meets the Committee's ``no cost'' criterion.
    For these reasons passage of H.R. 3716, while having a 
positive impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of 
its U.S. customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an 
U.S. industry. Granting temporary suspension of the duty on the 
product subject to this legislation is justified and 
appropriate.
    Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful 
consideration of our testimony.
      

                                


H.R. 3717

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Vinclozolin.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3718

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Tepraloxydim.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3719

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyridaben.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3720

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Acetylnicotinic acid.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3721

    To suspend temporarily the duty on SAMe.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3722

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Procion Crimson H-EXL.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3723

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Dispersol Crimson SF 
Grains.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3724

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Procion Navy H-EXL.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3725

                         No comments submitted.

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Procion Yellow H-EXL.
      

                                


H.R. 3726

    To suspend temporarily the duty on ortho-phenyl phenol 
(``OPP'').
      

                                


                              Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.    
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                       May 11, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means May 11, 2000
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

             Subject: H.R.3726 ortho-Phenylphenol (``OPP'')

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of ortho-Phenylphenol 
(``OPP''). Bayer's Logistics Division, with major import operations at 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Bayer warehouses in Pennsylvania, Chicago, 
South Carolina, Texas and California as well as Bayer's customers in 
Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, Kansas, Illinois, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and New Jersey would benefit from tariff 
suspension on this product. Ortho-Phenylphenol is effective for U.S. 
customers against a wide variety of mold fungi and bacteria for the 
preservation of glues and adhesives. It is also used in U.S. industry 
in preservation applications for polymer emulsions (coatings, PVA 
systems and rubber), thickeners, paper, textiles, dyes, metalworking 
fluids, air filter oils, printing inks and polishes and waxes. Ortho-
phenylphenol also benefits the U.S. lumber industry as a temporary 
sapstain control of fresh cut lumber and the building industry as a 
preservative for concrete additives and masonry. Bayer is the sole 
producer of ortho-Phenylphenol, which is not produced in the United 
States. There is a foreign producer of other phenolic biocides in the 
United Kingdom by the name of Nipa.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff 
suspension for ortho-Phenylphenol bill number H.R. 3726. Please do not 
hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the 
event that I am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office 
(Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location 
(Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                       Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3727

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methoxypropene.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3728

    To reduce temporarily the duty on 3,5-Difluroaniline.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3729

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Quinclorac.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3730

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Dispersol Black XF 
Grains.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3731

    To suspend temporarily the duty on fluroxypyr 1-
methylheptyl ester (FME).

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3733

    To reduce temporarily the duty on ethylene/
tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE).

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3734

    To suspend temporarily the duty on monolite green 860.
      

                                


                                   Sun Chemical Corporation
                                             Cincinnati, OH
                                                       May 18, 2000
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
    SunChemical Corporation Colors Group requests that these following 
entries be removed from the Temporary Duty Suspension List; Dyes & 
Pigments:
        HR3734, Monolite Green 952, Pigment Green 7 (PG7)
        HR3735, Monolite Green 860, Pigment Green 36 (PG36)
    These organic green pigments are produced by Colors Group, 
SunChemical Corporation, for the printing ink, coatings and 
plastics by our manufacturing plants located in Staten Island, 
NY; and, in Cincinnati, Ohio. With SunChemical Colors Group 
pigment and colorant annual sales near $300 million, these 
organic phthalocyanine pigment greens, PG7 and PG36, comprise a 
significant portion of the total organic pigments that 
SunChemical Colors Group produce specifically for the printing 
ink and automotive coatings markets.
    Pigment imports over these past 7 years have significantly 
eroded our sales and margin volumes.Consequently, any lower 
duties on these pigment green items would seriously impact our 
ability to manufacture and compete in this printing ink 
marketplace.
    Based in Cincinnati, OH, with over 700 employees, 
SunChemical Colors Group have become one of the top three world 
recognised producers of synthetic organic pigments.Our Research 
and Development Group have applied considerable effort on 
innovative and technical development of our high quality 
Sunfast Green PG7 and PG36 pigments.
    I would appreciate your consideration on these important 
issues.

            Sincerely,

                                        Stephen J. Schmidt,
                                       Vice President of Purchasing

    [An attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]
      

                                


H.R. 3735

    To suspend temporarily the duty on monolite green 952.

              see SunChemical Corporation, under H.R. 3734

      

                                


H.R. 3736

    To suspend temporarily the duty on solsperse 17260.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3737

    To suspend temporarily the duty on solsperse 17000.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3738

    To suspend temporarily the duty on solsperse 5000.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3739

    To suspend temporarily the duty on monolite blue 3R.
      

                                


                                   Sun Chemical Corporation
                                             Cincinnati, OH
                                                       May 18, 2000

Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    SunChemical Corporation Colors Group requests that these following 
entries be removed from the Temporary Duty Suspension List; Dyes & 
Pigments:
        HR3739, Monolite Blue 3R, Pigment Blue 60 (PB60)
        HR3759, Pigment Red 176, (PR176)
        HR3772, Pigment Yellow 199, (PY199)
        HR3773, Pigment Blue 60, (PB60)
          Note: same as HR3739. Monolite Blue 3R is a Zeneca trade name 
        for its PB60.
        HR3776, Pigment Yellow 147, (PY147)
        HR3777, Pigment Yellow 191.1, (PY191)
        HR3937, Pigment Yellow 184,(PY184)
        HR3939, Pigment Orange 73, (PO73)
        HR3944, Pigment Red 255, (PR255)
        HR3951, Pigment Red 264, (PR264)
        HR3958, Pigment Yellow 168, (PY168)
    SunChemical Corporation, Colors Group, currently produces a wide 
product range of similar high molecular weight, temperature resistant, 
specialised synthetic pigments for the paint, coatings and plastics 
markets. I have attached our pigment catalogues which list SunChemical 
Colors Group pigments specifically designed for these coatings and 
plastics markets.
    SunChemical requests that duties not be reduced on these similar 
pigments listed above. From its pigment manufacturing plants located in 
Staten Island, NY; Newark and Brunswick, NJ; Cincinnati and Amelia, OH; 
and Chicago, IL; Colors Group are fully capable of providing these type 
pigments to our color-consuming customers.
    I would appreciate your attention to these matters.
            Sincerely,

                                         Stephen J. Schmidt
                                       Vice President of Purchasing
                                                       Colors Group

    Cc: fax: Stephen Wanser, USITC 202-205-2150
      

                                


H.R. 3740

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain TAED chemicals.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3741

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain 
polymer.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3742

                         No comments submitted.

    To suspend temporarily the duty on isobornyl acetate.
      

                                


H.R. 3743

    To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium petroleum 
sulfonate.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3746

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-
hexylresorcinol.
      

                                


Statement of Honeywell International Inc.

    Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3746, introduced by Representative Jim 
Ramstad of Minnesota. This measure provides for extension of the 
temporary suspension of the U.S. import duty on the chemical 4-
Hexylresorcinol, normally classified under 2907.29.90, and temporarily 
classified under 9902.29.07, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS).
    Granting a suspension of the duty on the product subject to this 
legislation is justified and appropriate. To our knowledge there is no 
U.S. commercial production of the exact product in question. For this 
reason passage of H.R. 3746, while having a positive impact on the 
competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on a U.S. industry.

                        Description of Honeywell

    Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and 
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace 
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and 
industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty 
chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials. 
Honeywell was formed by the December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc. 
and Honeywell Inc.
    The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, and 
Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. Honeywell 
employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries and is traded on 
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol HON, as well as on the 
London, Chicago and Pacific stock exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks 
that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component 
of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

                Description of the Product and Its Uses

    4-Hexylresorcinol is used by Honeywell customers for a variety of 
applications, including in throat lozenges, to reduce spoilage in 
shrimp, in topical antiseptics, and in other pharmaceutical and 
cosmetic applications (some of which are still in the research and 
development stage).

   Extending the Existing Suspension of Duty on 4-Hexylresorcinol is 
                               Warranted

    There is no U.S. commercial production of the product subject to 
this legislation.
    This product was originally proposed for duty suspension in 1998. A 
thorough review by the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, and U.S. Customs Service determined the 
proposal to be noncontroversial and compliant with the revenue impact 
criterion established by the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
Committee on Finance. This proposal became law as part of the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-
36), which was signed by the President on June 25, 1999.
    Earlier, in 1997 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
compiled a list (so-called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose 
U.S. tariffs it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 APEC 
Ministerial meeting to eliminate. We submitted the product subject to 
this bill for inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide 
formal review of the proposed list, undertaken at the behest of the 
U.S. government, no one objected to this product's presence on the 
list, i.e., had no objections to its duty being eliminated.

                                Summary

    To Honeywell's knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of 
the exact product in question. Further, when scrutinized thoroughly in 
the past as a product proposed to receive preferential tariff 
treatment, such related proposals were deemed noncontroversial. 
Regrettably, notwithstanding the good intentions and tireless efforts 
of U.S. trade negotiators to achieve tariff elimination/reductions in 
various fora, it is uncertain if and when the APEC, or for that matter 
the WTO, process will yield the desired tariff cuts provided for in 
H.R. 3746.
    For these reasons passage of H.R. 3746, while having a positive 
impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. 
customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry. 
Extending the temporary suspension of the duty on the product subject 
to this legislation is justified and appropriate.
    Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful consideration of our 
testimony.
      

                                


H.R. 3747

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
sensitizing dyes.
      

                                


Statement of Honeywell International Inc.

    Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3747, introduced by 
Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota. This measure provides 
for extension of the temporary suspension of the U.S. import 
duty on certain sensitizing dyes for photo/imaging 
applications, normally classified under 2933.19.30, 2933.19.90, 
2933.90.24, 2934.10.90, 2934.20.40, 2934.90.20, and 2934.90.90, 
and temporarily classified under 9902.29.37, of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
    Granting a suspension of the duty on the products subject 
to this legislation is justified and appropriate. To our 
knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of the exact 
products in question. For this reason passage of H.R. 3747, 
while having a positive impact on the competitiveness of 
Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not have a 
detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.

                        Description of Honeywell

    Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and 
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace 
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and 
industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty 
chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials. 
Honeywell was formed by the December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc. 
and Honeywell Inc.
    The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, and 
Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. Honeywell 
employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries and is traded on 
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol HON, as well as on the 
London, Chicago and Pacific stock exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks 
that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component 
of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

               Description of the Products and Their Uses

    Polymethine sensitizing dyes are used by Honeywell customers to 
improve the spectral response of photosensitive emulsions used on 
films, including photographic films of all types, medical imaging 
films, and graphic arts films. These dyes are complex organic 
molecules, and each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis 
for a specific film emulsion. Once a customer has decided upon a 
particular molecular structure and specifications for the material 
(e.g., metals content, crystal size, etc.), the product becomes truly 
unique to that particular customer, to the supplier and to the 
application. These dyes are generally added in tiny amounts to film 
emulsions to adjust the photon sensitivity of the film.

 Extending the Existing Suspension of Duty on Certain Sensitizing Dyes 
              for Photo/Imaging Applications is Warranted

    There is no U.S. commercial production of the products subject to 
this legislation.
    These products were originally proposed for duty suspension in 
1998. A thorough review by the U.S. International Trade Commission, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Customs Service determined the 
proposal to be noncontroversial and compliant with the revenue impact 
criterion established by the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
Committee on Finance. This proposal became law as part of the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-
36), which was signed by the President on June 25, 1999.
    Earlier, in 1997 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
compiled a list (so-called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose 
U.S. tariffs it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 APEC 
Ministerial meeting to eliminate. We submitted the products subject to 
this bill for inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide 
formal review of the proposed list, undertaken at the behest of the 
U.S. government, no one objected to these products presence on the 
list, i.e., had no objections to their duties being eliminated.

                                Summary

    To Honeywell's knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of 
the exact products in question. Further, when scrutinized thoroughly in 
the past as products proposed to receive preferential tariff treatment, 
such related proposals were deemed noncontroversial. Regrettably, 
notwithstanding the good intentions and tireless efforts of U.S. trade 
negotiators to achieve tariff elimination/reductions in various fora, 
it is uncertain if and when the APEC, or for that matter the WTO, 
process will yield the desired tariff cuts provided for in H.R. 3747.
    For these reasons passage of H.R. 3747, while having a positive 
impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. 
customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry. 
Extending the temporary suspension of the duty on the products subject 
to this legislation is justified and appropriate.
    Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful consideration of our 
testimony.
      

                                


H.R. 3748

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
organic pigments and dyes
      

                                


Statement of Honeywell International Inc.

    Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 3748, introduced by Representative Jim 
Ramstad of Minnesota. This measure provides for extension of the 
temporary suspension of the U.S. import duty on certain organic 
pigments and dyes for security applications, normally classified under 
3204.90.00, and temporarily classified under 9902.32.07, of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
    Granting a suspension of the duty on the products subject to this 
legislation is justified and appropriate. To our knowledge there is no 
U.S. commercial production of the exact products in question. For this 
reason passage of H.R. 3748, while having a positive impact on the 
competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry.

                        Description of Honeywell

    Honeywell is a US$25-billion diversified technology and 
manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace 
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and 
industry; automotive products; power generation systems; specialty 
chemicals; fibers; plastics; and electronic and advanced materials. 
Honeywell was formed by the December 1999 merger of AlliedSignal Inc. 
and Honeywell Inc.
    The company is a leading developer of software, solutions, and 
Internet e-hubs, including MyAircraft.com and MyPlant.com. Honeywell 
employs approximately 120,000 people in 95 countries and is traded on 
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol HON, as well as on the 
London, Chicago and Pacific stock exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks 
that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component 
of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

               Description of the Products and Their Uses

    Organic luminescent pigments and dyes are used by Honeywell 
customers in various products that require security and anti-
counterfeiting technology. Examples of end uses in which trace amounts 
of highly specialized luminescent pigments, dyes and fibers may be used 
are: Currency, stock certificates, credit cards, postal stamps, labels 
for packages, software certificates of authenticity, drivers licenses, 
etc. These luminescent compounds are complex organic molecules, and 
each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis for a specific 
anti-counterfeiting application. Once a customer has decided upon a 
particular molecular structure, and specifications for the material, 
the product becomes truly unique to that particular customer, to the 
supplier and to the application.

 Extending the Existing Suspension of Duty on Certain Organic Pigments 
            and Dyes for Security Applications is Warranted

    There is no U.S. commercial production of the products subject to 
this legislation.
    These products were originally proposed for duty suspension in 
1998. A thorough review by the U.S. International Trade Commission, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Customs Service determined the 
proposal to be noncontroversial and compliant with the revenue impact 
criterion established by the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
Committee on Finance. This proposal became law as part of the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-
36), which was signed by the President on June 25, 1999.
    Earlier, in 1997 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
compiled a list (so-called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose 
U.S. tariffs it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 APEC 
Ministerial meeting to eliminate. We submitted the products subject to 
this bill for inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide 
formal review of the proposed list, undertaken at the behest of the 
U.S. government, no one objected to these products presence on the 
list, i.e., had no objections to their duties being eliminated.

                                Summary

    To Honeywell's knowledge there is no U.S. commercial production of 
the exact products in question. Further, when scrutinized thoroughly in 
the past as products proposed to receive preferential tariff treatment, 
such related proposals were deemed noncontroversial. Regrettably, 
notwithstanding the good intentions and tireless efforts of U.S. trade 
negotiators to achieve tariff elimination/reductions in various fora, 
it is uncertain if and when the APEC, or for that matter the WTO, 
process will yield the desired tariff cuts provided for in H.R. 3748.
    For these reasons passage of H.R. 3748, while having a positive 
impact on the competitiveness of Honeywell and many of its U.S. 
customers, would not have a detrimental effect on an U.S. industry. 
Extending the temporary suspension of the duty on the products subject 
to this legislation is justified and appropriate.
    Honeywell thanks the Committee for its careful consideration of our 
testimony.
      

                                


H.R. 3751

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain semi-
manufactured forms of gold.
      

                                


                                          Hale and Dorr LLP
                                       Washington, DC 20004
                                                       May 19, 2000

A.L Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Request for Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff Provision, H.R. 3751

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    This letter is filed on behalf of Micron Technology, Inc., in 
strong support of H.R. 3751, a miscellaneous tariff bill that would 
continue the temporary duty suspension for gold bonding wire used in 
the semiconductor assembly process. Micron does believe, however, that 
duty free treatment should be extended to 2005, rather than 2003, as in 
the current draft of this legislation. A companion Senate bill would 
extend duty free treatment through 2005.
    Gold bonding wire is an indispensable material used in assembling 
semiconductors and integrated circuits. In the semiconductor assembly 
process, very fine gold wire is used to connect the pads on the 
semiconductor die to the leads on the leadframe of the semiconductor 
package.
    Semiconductor-grade gold wire is unlike gold wire used for any 
other application. First, it is very fine, with a diameter of 0.06 
millimeters or less. It is also very pure, usually having a purity of 
99.99 percent or greater. Semiconductor gold bonding wire also contains 
very specific dopants, which are added to control wirebonding 
characteristics. This type of gold wire is used only for semiconductors 
and integrated circuits and cannot be used for any other purpose.
    Semiconductor gold bonding wire is classified under Harmonized 
Tariff Number 7108.13.7000, and carries a duty rate of 5.1 percent. The 
duty on this product is currently suspended, however, due to 
legislation passed in October 1996. The current temporary tariff 
classification for this product is 9902.71.08.
    Gold bonding wire should be duty free an a permanent basis. The 
``zero-for-zero'' round of duty elimination negotiations that took 
place during the Uruguay Round and the Information Technology Agreement 
eliminated most of the duties on semiconductor manufacturing equipment 
and materials. Gold bonding wire was overlooked during these 
negotiations. United States duties were eliminated on the end product, 
semiconductors, in the 1980's.
    There is clear historical industry consensus regarding duty 
suspension for gold bonding wire. It would benefit all U.S. companies 
assembling semiconductors in the United States. As noted above, gold 
bonding wire for semiconductors was included in a temporary duty 
suspension bill passed in October 1996. (It is for this reason that 
gold bonding wire currently has a zero duty rate.) In conjunction with 
that bill, the Senate requested public comment. No adverse comments 
were received. In fact, Victoria Hadfield, filing comments on behalf of 
Semiconductor and Equipment Manufacturers International (``SEMI''), 
stated that for gold bonding wire ``I can identify no domestic 
opposition to these proposed tariff reductions and would support (its) 
passage.'' SEMI's support is important because this trade organization 
represents the U.S. producers of materials used in the semiconductor 
manufacturing process. The Semiconductor Industry Association, the 
trade association representing U.S. semiconductor manufacturers, also 
supports this legislation.
    Duty free treatment for gold bonding wire would make U.S. 
semiconductor manufacturers more competitive and would reinforce and 
encourage greater assembly of semiconductors in the United States, 
rather than abroad where many assemblers already enjoy duty free 
treatment of material inputs and equipment.
    Finally, Micron believes that this legislation is non-controversial 
because, to Micron's knowledge, there are no companies that make 
semiconductor gold bonding wire in the United States. Micron also 
believes that the revenue impact of this legislation would be de 
minimis.
    If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not 
hesitate to contact me at (202) 942-8371. Thank you for your help on 
this important legislation.

            Sincerely,

                                            Bonnie B. Byers
      

                                


                         Semiconductor Industry Association
                                                       May 19, 2000

A.L Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Request for Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff Provision, H.R. 3751

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    The Semiconductor Industry Association (``SIA'') urges passage of 
H.R. 3751 introduced by Congressman Simpson. Specifically, the bill 
would continue the suspension of the 6.6 percent duty for gold bonding 
wire used in the semiconductor manufacturing process.
    SIA has long supported the elimination of tariffs on 
semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and materials, 
and information technology products. The US eliminated semiconductor 
duties in 1985, and during the Uruguay Round and the Information 
Technology Agreement, eliminated duties on many types of equipment and 
materials related to the semiconductor fabrication process. Many duties 
remain, however, on equipment and materials that relate to the assembly 
stage of the semiconductor manufacturing process. During this step, 
individual silicon chips are placed in packages. This is done by 
attaching the chips to lead frames with very fine gold wire and then 
literally molding a plastic package around the chip and the lead frame. 
The gold wire used to attach the die to the lead frame is of a certain 
grade, purity and chemical composition suitable for use only in the 
semiconductor manufacturing process.
    The US semiconductor industry is a major contributor to the US 
economy providing 284,000 US jobs. In 1999 worldwide sales of 
semiconductors reached $174 billion. The world market is expected to 
grow to $234 billion by the year 2002. Duty free treatment for items 
used in the semiconductor assembly process would improve the 
competitiveness of the US semiconductor industry, particularly those 
companies who locate assembly operations in the US. Moreover, to SIA's 
knowledge, this tariff suspension bill is not controversial, since 
there is no bonding wire industry in the United States.
    SIA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned 
tariff suspension provision, and urges you to include it in any 
miscellaneous tariff bill reported out of the Ways and Means Committee.

            Sincerely,

                                            Daryl G. Hatano
                                       Vice President Public Policy
      

                                


H.R. 3752

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Nitro-o-xylene.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3753

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain copper foils.
      

                                


                                 Copper & Brass Fabricators
                                              Council, Inc.
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

RE: Request for Written Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
              Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

    In response to your notice of April 20, 2000, subject as above, 
this statement is submitted on behalf of the Copper and Brass 
Fabricators Council, Inc., (``Council'') and its 22 member companies 
(see attached list of Council member companies). The Council is a trade 
association which represents the principal copper and brass mills in 
the United States. These mills together account for the fabrication of 
more than 80 percent 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 the automotive, construction, and 
electrical/electronic industries.
    The Council's comments are limited to H.R.3753 and H.R.3869 which 
are listed as components of the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension legislation compiled in the 
Committee's notice of April 20.
    As background, it should be noted that since early 1985, the 
Council and its member companies have brought a series of antidumping 
and countervailing duty cases before the Department of Commerce and 
International Trade Commission to counter large increases of imports of 
brass mill products. These proceedings have led to determinations that 
respondent countries were guilty of unfair pricing and resulted in the 
issuance of eleven antidumping duty orders and three countervailing 
duty orders against imports of brass sheet and strip and of low-fuming 
brazing rod from a total of eleven countries.
    In taking these measures, the Council was reacting to a steady 
increase in the share of imports that were dumped and subsidized 
beginning in the late 1970's and continuing to the present.
    Correspondingly, with respect to regular U.S. import tariffs, in 
the series of multilateral trade negotiations following the GATT 
agreement of 1948, the U.S. Government has consistently stated that the 
world trading system should be free and nondiscriminatory and that U.S. 
commerce should have competitive opportunities substantially equivalent 
to those of its trading partners within that system.
    Unfortunately, none of the multilateral trade negotiations, 
including the Uruguay Round, has secured those goals for the U.S. brass 
mill industry. Excessive and unmatched reductions in U.S. brass mill 
product tariffs have resulted in a persistent and substantial 
unfavorable trade balance in brass mill products. For copper foil the 
product covered by H.R.3753 (HTS No. 7410.11.00) U.S. imports from all 
countries in 1999 totaled 55,468,020 pounds while U.S. exports were 
23,428,815 pounds.
    Brass mill product markets are marked by intense price competition 
and sales are won or lost on differences as small as a penny per pound. 
Consequently, temporary suspension of normal tariffs on copper foil as 
proposed in H.R.3753 would certainly lead to even larger trade deficits 
in the product.
    Because of this likely adverse impact on the U.S. market for copper 
foil, the Council objects to the enactment of H.R.3753 as part of the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension legislation.
    The Council's reliance upon the United States' unfair trade laws is 
of vital importance to this industry, and the continuance of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders won by the Council has been 
a matter to which the United States copper and brass mills assign a top 
priority. This industry is similar to other United States domestic 
industries that have successfully prosecuted antidumping and 
countervailing duty proceedings. The cost of these cases is high, and 
petitioners understandably expect that the unfair trade remedies which 
they have fought so hard to obtain will remain viable.
    The Council has discovered in its cases that enforcement of unfair 
trade orders must be pursued vigorously by the domestic industry in 
several major respects. Of pertinence to this matter, the Council has 
found that there is no effective mechanism in place by which the 
Customs Service and Department of Commerce can accurately record what 
antidumping and countervailing duties have been assessed and collected 
on legally entered imports in a particular proceeding or over-all. Over 
the past several years, the Council has asked for documented and 
detailed accountings of the aggregated duties brought in under its 
orders. These efforts have produced limited and often inconsistent data 
and only after considerable checking and special compilation by the 
agencies.
    In the Council's antidumping and countervailing duty cases it has 
become evident that the Customs Service and Department of Commerce do 
not know what antidumping and countervailing duties are being paid. 
These data are simply not being maintained on a regular basis in a 
manner that enables the agencies to say with any assurance that 
particular unfair trade orders are being enforced. It is assumed that 
the duties are being collected, but there is no trustworthy evidence to 
substantiate this claim or to ascertain the amounts of the duties.
    The Council has been advised that the situation sought to be 
remedied by H.R.3869 may represent an example of the Customs Service 
failing to accurately collect antidumping duties on brass sheet and 
strip. Since becoming aware of H.R.3869, the Council has attempted to 
obtain verification of the claim that the bill would simply correct 
errors on the part of the Customs Service. Those attempts have not 
resulted in the receipt of any documentation of the alleged Customs 
Service errors.
    H.R.3869 would mandate the liquidation or reliquidation of 
approximately 235 entries of brass sheet and strip subject to an 
antidumping duty order and ranging in time from 1987, which was the 
first full year of the order's existence, to as recently as 1996.
    While the Council would not contest the possibility that the 
Customs Service may have erroneously administered collection of 
antidumping duties on brass sheet and strip, the large number of 
entries and extended period of time covered by H.R.3869 compel the 
Council to object to its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension legislation currently 
under consideration.
    The Council would welcome, and cooperate in, an effort to ascertain 
the accuracy of the entries listed in H.R.3869 but until that 
determination is made in an open process the Council does not believe 
that Congressionally mandated liquidation or reliquidation of the 
subject entries is justified.
    In closing, it should be noted that Outokumpu American Brass, a 
Council member company, does not support that portion of this 
submission which relates to H.R.3869.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                            Joseph L. Mayer
                                        President & General Counsel
                         Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.
    Attachment

               Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.

                            Membership List

THE AMPCO GROUP
P.O. Box 2004
Milwaukee, WI 53201
(414) 645-3750x358
ANSONIA COPPER & BRASS, INC.
P.O. Box 109
Ansonia, CT 06401
(203) 732-6606x606
BRUSH WELLMAN, INC.
17876 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44110
(216) 486-4048
CAMBRIDGE-LEE INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Reading Tube Division)
P.O. Box 14026
Reading, PA 19612-4026
(610) 926-7366
CERRO COPPER PRODUCTS CO.
(A member of The Marmon
Group of companies)
P.O. Box 66800
St. Louis, MO 63166-6800
(618) 874-8670
CERRO METAL PRODUCTS CO.
(A member of The Marmon
Group of companies)
P.O. Box 388
Bellefonte, PA 16823
(814) 355-6200
CHASE BRASS & COPPER CO., INC.
P.O. Box 152
Montpelier, OH 43543
(419) 485-3193
CHICAGO EXTRUDED METALS CO.
401 N. Michigan Avenue, #700
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 670-1515
EXTRUDED METALS
302 Ashfield Street
Belding, MI 48809
(616) 794-4842
HEYCO METALS, INC.
1069 Stinson Drive
Reading, PA 19605
(610) 926-4131
HUSSEY COPPER LTD.
Washington Street
Leetsdale, PA 15056-1099
(724) 251-4238
KOBE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.
P.O. Box 160
Pine Hall, NC 27042
(336) 427-6611
METALS AMERICA
135 Old Boiling Springs Road
Shelby, NC 28150
(215) 517-6000X125
THE MILLER COMPANY
290 Pratt Street
Meriden, CT 06450-1010
(203) 639-5234
MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC.
8285 Tournament Drive, #150
Memphis, TN 38125
(901) 753-3201
OLIN CORPORATION-BRASS GROUP
427 N. Shamrock Street
East Alton, IL 62024-1174
(618) 258-3775
OUTOKUMPU AMERICAN BRASS
P.O. Box 981
Buffalo, NY 14240-0981
(716) 879-6979
OUTOKUMPU COPPER FRANKLIN, INC.
P.O. Box 539
Franklin, KY 42135-0539
(270) 586-8201x155
PMX INDUSTRIES, INC.
5300 Willow Creek Drive, SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-4303
(319) 368-7700x1155
REVERE COPPER PRODUCTS, INC.
One Revere Park
Rome, NY 13440-5561
(315) 338-2332
WATERBURY ROLLING MILLS, INC.
P.O. Box 550
Waterbury, CT 06720
(203) 754-0151x246
WIELAND METALS, INC.
567 Northgate Parkway
Wheeling, IL 60090
(847) 537-3990
      

                                


H.R. 3754

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain activated 
carbon.
      

                                


                                  Calgon Carbon Corporation
                                             Pittsburgh, PA
                                                     April 25, 2000

Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 3754

    Calgon Carbon Corporation (CCC), as the largest manufacturer of 
activated carbon in the United States and representing the best 
interests of our industry, strongly opposes H.R. 3754. The main reasons 
for our opposition to H.R. 3754 are as follows:
     The current import duty is not restrictive to the import 
of activated carbon. This is evident particularly by the dramatic 
increase in Chinese activated carbon imports from 5 million pounds in 
1991 to 32 million pounds in 1998. In other words, the rate of 
activated carbon imports from China has grown at an average rate of 30% 
per year since 1991. This is an unprecedented growth rate in a market 
that has only grown at an average of 3% to 5% per year since 1991.
     The US trade deficit has climbed to astronomic proportions 
fueled in large part due to our soaring trade deficit with China. 
Suspending the duty will only serve to accelerate the rate of growth of 
our trade deficit.
     US based activated carbon manufacturers serving the 
municipal water and wastewater treatment markets have idled and reduced 
capacity. These actions have eliminated US industrial workers of their 
livelihood and have taken place largely due to the sharp decrease in 
pricing due to inexpensive imported activated carbons mainly from 
China. Specifically, CCC has been forced to make several major 
production capacity decisions. In response to artificially low priced 
activated carbon produced in China flooding markets in Japan, US, and 
Europe, In November 1991 CCC permanently shutdown an activated carbon 
production line at our Kentucky plant eliminating 18 million pounds of 
capacity. In November 1999 we permanently shutdown another activated 
carbon production line at our Kentucky plant and an activated carbon 
pellet production line at our Pennsylvania plant eliminating an 
additional 25 million pounds of capacity. In May 2000 we will have 
completed our shutdown an activated carbon production line in Belgium 
eliminating 25 million pounds of capacity. The total job loss due to 
the elimination of our production capacity is approximately 220 
employees in the US and 100 employees in Belgium.
     US based activated carbon manufacturers are held to 
stringent environmental standards which is commendable considering 
activated carbon is one of the major solutions to air and water 
pollution. Yet, it is ironic that countries exporting activated carbon 
do not hold their manufacturers to the same environmental standards. 
This is especially true in China where no air pollution abatement 
equipment is utilized in their production of activated carbon from high 
ash coals. The air pollution they create at their plants knows no 
boundaries. It travels across the Pacific Ocean and ends up in US water 
supplies where activated carbon is required to make the water 
drinkable.
    In conclusion, CCC and other US activated carbon manufacturers are 
quite similar to many large and more publicized US industries such as 
steel manufacturers who are also facing challenges from inexpensive 
imports. Their arguments against foreign manufactures are similar to 
ours along with the specific reasons noted above. At this time we see 
no logical reason why suspending the 4.8% duty is prudent. Rather, we 
recommend increasing the duty to 10-15%.
    We appreciate the opportunity to express of our position. If you 
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (412) 787-6762.

            Sincerely,

                                             Karl D. Krause
                                  Marketing Manager Carbon Platform
      

                                


H.R. 3755

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain buff brushes.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3757

    To temporarily suspend the duty on Solvent Blue 124.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3758

    To temporarily suspend the duty on Solvent Blue 104.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3759

    To temporarily suspend the duty on Pigment Red 176.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.

      

                                


H.R. 3760

    To temporarily suspend the duty on benzenesulfonamide, 4-
amino-2, 5-dimethyoxy-N-phenyl

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3762

    To suspend temporarily the duty on undecylenic acid.
      

                                


                             ELF Atochem North America, Inc
                                        Arlington, VA 22209
                                                       May 10, 2000

The Hon. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce 
Covering Duty Suspension for Undecylenic Acid (HR 3762).

    Dear Mr. Singleton,

    In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document 
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf 
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these 
copies to the Committee for the record.
    Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have 
additional questions.

            Regards,

                                         Charles A. Kitchen
                                     Director--Government Relations

              ELF Atochem/ATO--Product/Market Information

    Note: This information is provided in response to U.S. 
International Trade Commission inquiry.

Product Information and Project Import Volume Data for Undecylenic Acid 
                         (H.R. 3762 & S. 2427)

CAS Reference Number

    Undecylenic Acid -CAS #112-38-9

Background

    Undecylenic acid is a carboxylic acid derived from natural 
castor oil. It is used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, 
cosmetics and perfumery including anti-dandruff shampoos, anti-
microbial powders and as a musk in perfumes and aromas. 
Undecylenic acid is not produced in the U.S. It must be 
imported. Imported undecylenic acid is subject to a 6.1% duty 
under HTS 2916.19.30.

Undecylenic Acid should be re-classified as duty free

     No Domestic production. There are no U.S. 
producers of undecylenic acid that would be affected by re-
classifying undecylenic acid as duty free.
     Derived from a renewable resource. Undecylenic 
acid is derived from castor oil and is of very high purity 
(98%), which is not typical of carboxylic acids of this type.

                        Production / Importation

        Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate 
        Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel: 
        215/419-7000
    Undecylenic acid is produced at Elf Atochem SA's production 
facility in Marseilles, France. Material is imported by Elf 
Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market customers. No 
subsequent production processing is required. Imported material 
is warehoused in the following location prior to shipment to 
end-use customers:
    Stored at Edison, NJ (Linden Distribution). Imported 
through New York. No additional processing at any Elf Atochem 
facilities.
      

                                


H.R. 3763

    To suspend temporarily the duty on n-Heptaldehyde.
      

                                


                            ELF ATOCHEM North America, Inc.
                                        Arlington, VA 22209
                                                       May 10, 2000

The Hon. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce 
Covering Duty Suspension for n-Heptaldehyde (HR 3763).

    Dear Mr. Singleton,

    In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document 
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf 
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these 
copies to the Committee for the record.
    Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have 
additional questions.
            Regards,
                                         Charles A. Kitchen
                                     Director--Government Relations

              ELF Atochem/ATO--Product/Market Information

    Note: This information is provided in response to U.S. 
International Trade Commission inquiry.

 Product Information and Project Import Volume Data for n-Heptaldehyde 
                         (H.R. 3763 & S. 2428)

CAS Reference Number

    n-Heptaldehyde -CAS # 111-71-7

Background

    N-heptaldehyde is an aldehyde that is derived from natural 
castor oil. It is used primarily in the manufacture of alpha 
amyl cinnamic aldehyde (ACA), a key ingredient in fragrances 
and perfumes as well as for certain industrial uses, including 
tire manufacture. N-heptaldehyde is not produced in the U.S. It 
must be imported. Imported n-heptaldehyde is subject to a 5.5% 
duty under HTS 2912.50.50.

n-Heptaldehyde should be re-classified as duty free.

     No Domestic production. There are no U.S. 
producers of n-heptaldehyde that would be affected by re-
classifying n-heptaldehyde as duty free.

                        Production / Importation

        Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate 
        Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel: 
        215/419-7000
    The material, n-Heptaldehyde, is produced at Elf Atochem 
SA's production facility in Marseilles, France. Material is 
imported by Elf Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market 
customers. No subsequent production processing is required. 
Imported material is warehoused in the following location prior 
to shipment to end-use customers:
    Stored at Edison, NJ (Linden Distribution). Imported 
through New York. No additional processing at any ATO site.
    Please Note: In response to your earlier inquiry, Firmenich 
and Penta Manufacturing are Elf Atochem's customers for n-
heptaldehyde. Aldrich has not bought from us in the recent 
past, but they are a supplier of laboratory quantities 
(milliliters to liters). They have over 30,000 items in their 
catalog. They do not produce n-heptaldehyde in any commercial 
quantity.
      

                                


H.R. 3764

    To suspend temporarily the duty on n-Heptanoic acid.
      

                                


                            ELF ATOCHEM North America, Inc.
                                        Arlington, VA 22209
                                                       May 10, 2000
The Hon. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S. 
InternationalTrade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce 
Covering Duty Suspension for n-Heptanoic Acid (HR 3764).

Dear Mr. Singleton,
    In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document 
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf 
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these 
copies to the Committee for the record.
    Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have 
additional questions.
            Regards,
                                         Charles A. Kitchen
                                     Director, Government Relations

              ELF Atochem/ATO--Product/Market Information

    Note: This information is provided in response to U.S. 
International Trade Commission inquiry.

Product Information and Project Import Volume Data for n-Heptanoic Acid 
                         (H.R. 3764 & S. 2426)

CAS Reference Number

    n-Heptanoic Acid -CAS # 114-14-8

Background

    Imported n-heptanoic acid is a carboxylic acid that is 
derived from natural castor oil. It is used to make lubricants 
(including those for jet engines), paint additives and in 
manufacturing a plastisizer for PVB (polyvinyl butyral), an 
interlayer in laminated safety glass for auto and architectural 
applications.
    Domestically produced n-heptanoic acid is a synthetic 
product. It is used for similar applications, but is derived 
from hexene, a petrochemical. The supply of domestically 
produced n-heptanoic acid is not sufficient to meet the 
domestic demand. Even with imports, the domestic demand for n-
heptanoic acid exceeds the available supply Imported n-
heptanoic acid is subject to a 4.2% duty under HTS 2915.90.18.

n-Heptanoic Acid should be re-classified as duty free.

    1. Environmentally advantageous to use imported n-heptanoic 
Acid. The environmental advantage of using imported n-heptanoic 
acid is that it is based on a renewable resource, Castor oil, 
which is a vegetable oil. The imported product is also very 
pure. The domestic product is synthetic. It is manufactured by 
reacting hexene, a flammable liquid petrochemical, with carbon 
monoxide (a toxic gas) and hydrogen gas (explosive). Since 
imported n-heptanoic acid is derived from a natural and 
renewable resource, hazardous chemical precursors are not 
utilized in the production process.
     Domestic production is not sufficient to satisfy 
domestic demand. Projected Y2000 domestic demand for n-
heptanoic acid is estimated at 48 million lbs. In 1999, U.S. 
sales of imported n-heptanoic acid were approximately 15 
million lbs. and U.S. sales of domestically produced n-
heptanoic acid were approximately 31 million lbs. No U.S. 
producer or any other potential new producers have indicated an 
intent to increase or start-up production of n-heptanoic acid 
in the U.S.

                        Production / Importation

        Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate 
        Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel: 
        215/419-7000
    The material, n-heptanoic acid is produced at Elf Atochem 
SA's production facility in Marseilles, France. Material is 
imported by Elf Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market 
customers. No subsequent production processing is required. 
Imported material is warehoused in the following location prior 
to shipment to end-use customers:
    No additional processing occurs at any Elf Atochem site. 
Imported product is stored at Elizabeth, NJ (Croda Storage). 
Imported through New York City.
      

                                


H.R. 3772

    To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment yellow 199.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.

      

                                


H.R. 3773

    To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment blue 60.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.

      

                                


H.R. 3774

    To suspend temporarily the duty on solvent violet 13.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3775

    To suspend temporarily the duty on solvent blue 67.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3776

    To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment yellow 147.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.

      

                                


H.R. 3777

    To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment yellow 191.1.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739.

      

                                


H.R. 3778

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide duty-free treatment for, and clarify the 
classification of, machines and components used in the 
manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs).
      

                                


Statement of Alex Greenspan on Behalf of Digital Matrix Corporation, 
Hempstead, New York

    I am Alex Greenspan, president of Digital Matrix 
Corporation, a New York-based company that manufactures and 
integrates equipment used for the production of optical disc 
media, including compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile 
discs (DVDs). Of the three major components of the DVD 
production process (mastering, electroforming, and 
replication), Digital Matrix specializes in electroforming. 
Specifically, Digital Matrix manufactures electroforming 
equipment used to produce, by an electolytic plating process, 
CD/DVD stampers from CD/DVD masters, which are then used to 
produce CDs and DVDs.
    Digital Matrix's comments concern those duty suspension 
bills, H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795, currently before the 
Subcommittee that relate to the optical disc industry, and 
specifically to the importation of equipment used to 
manufacture DVD media. These bills would eliminate the tariff 
on the importation of such equipment, in a misguided and 
unnecessary attempt to stimulate growth of the DVD format. 
Digital Matrix vigorously opposes these bills. The impact would 
be to increase the market advantage and profits of the foreign 
manufacturers at the expense of U.S. companies. Further, it is 
patently unfair to suspend tariffs for foreign companies when 
no such tariff relief is available for the same U.S. made 
products sold in European and Asian markets. Furthermore, these 
bills would inflict special harm on domestic companies as the 
same tariff-free equipment used for DVD production can and will 
be used to produce a wide range of optical media including CD-
ROMs and audio CDs.
    The introduction of these bills is predicated on the 
representations of foreign companies, specifically Japan's 
Panasonic and the Dutch Toolex/ODME, that there are no US 
companies involved in the manufacturing of optical disc media 
producing equipment. This is quite simply not so, as these 
companies well know. In fact, there are numerous U.S. companies 
competing in this arena, including ourselves, Optical Digital 
Corporation, and Record Products of America. The only 
difference is that most of the US equipment manufacturers adopt 
to a modular design, while most foreign makers tend to produce 
all-in-one in-line equipment. Despite Toolex's assertions that 
the development and production of optical storage media started 
in Europe, much of the development, testing, and production of 
these new formats has been performed in the United States. 
While both Toolex and Panasonic claim that all or nearly all 
equipment used by domestic DVD manufacturers is of foreign 
origin, again this is simply false. In fact the majority of 
electroforming equipment alone (Digital Matrix's sole line of 
business) used in the United States is of domestic origin.
    As a U.S. company, Digital Matrix constantly struggles in 
foreign markets. This difficult task is complicated by several 
factors. First, the strength of the U.S. Dollar increases the 
price of our equipment abroad. Second Digital Matrix must 
overcome the distinct ``anti-American'' sentiment pervasive in 
European, and to some extent Asian, markets. Only with our top-
quality equipment backed up by the best support in the industry 
are we able to overcome this bias. The tariffs on American 
products only exacerbate the situation.
    Our competitors have clearly embarked on an aggressive 
campaign to increase their already substantial market share of 
the US Market. For example, Toolex has acquired many of its 
competitors, including one US company. By using such anti-
competitive practices as ``dumping,'' ``bundling,'' and ``tie-
in sales,'' we believe that Toolex has crossed the line into 
attempting to dominate the market. In many cases, Toolex will 
only sell mastering equipment to a customer who buys 
electroforming equipment with it.
    Toolex and Panasonic allege relieving them of the required 
tariff on the machinery they export to the US will make US DVD 
manufacturers more competitive. Realistically though, the cost 
of machinery used to produce DVD's is only a fraction of the 
cost of each DVD, and the three percent tariff Toolex pays 
would not likely find its way to lower priced DVDs. The three 
percent is enough, however, to encourage the use of domestic 
equipment.
    While the foreign corporations recommending this favorable 
treatment for themselves attempt to draw a parallel to the 1994 
tariff relief for foreign producers of video laser disks 
(VLDs), this is a poor analogy. DVDs are much more than the 
next incarnation of VLDs. Equipment used in the production of 
VLDs served to produce only VLD discs used for home movie 
viewing. DVD equipment, on the other hand, has a substantially 
broader range of uses. Also, while there were no major domestic 
manufactureres of VLD machinery in 1994 thus necessitating 
imported equipment, there are a number of DVD equipment 
manufacturers, as previously stated. Additionally, the 1994 
tariff relief effectively eviscerated the market for US made 
VLD manufacturing machinery, and eventually served to move the 
production of VLDs themselves offshore. The same will happen to 
the DVD, audio CD, and CD-ROM production if these bills are 
passed.
    Additionally, it is important to understand that DVD 
manufacturing is essentially the same as CD manufacturing. 
There is almost no difference between the way a CD stamper is 
made and the way a DVD stamper is made. The only major 
difference is that the specifications and tolerances are more 
rigorous for DVD stampers than for CD stampers. The basic 
process, however, is the same. As a result, equipment imported 
tariff-free as DVD producing equipment will also be used to 
produce audio CDs, video game discs, computer CD-ROMs, and 
other formats with little or no modification. Thus, a lifting 
of tariffs on DVD-related equipment is effectively a lifting of 
tariffs relevant to such other media as well.
    In addition to the damage to the businesses that produce 
DVD and CD manufacturing equipment, the upstream effects could 
be significant as well. Digital Matrix contracts millions of 
dollars worth of business from dozens of vendors that produce 
and supply parts, components, design work, assemblies, and 
services necessary to produce such a technology intensive 
product. A sample partial list Digital Matrix's suppliers is 
attached as Exhibit A. Other domestic manufacturers have 
similar support networks. The loss of business to Digital 
Matrix and the other domestic optical disc companies affected 
would affect potentially hundreds of companies, and thousands 
of American employees. While Toolex believes their theoretical 
increase in domestic DVD production will mean more jobs, this 
will surely be more than offset by the offshore production of 
these machines and their components.
    Finally, Toolex has stated that there will be no loss of 
tariff revenue. Their tortured logic states that ``any loss of 
revenue . . . would be set off against the duties gained 
through Customs' reclassification of DVD machines. It is simply 
inconceivable that by importing these machines duty-free, 
Customs will collect more tariff revenue.
    In conclusion, in addition to the loss to the U.S. of 
millions in tariff revenue, the net effect of this legislation 
would be great harm to American businesses, the loss of 
American jobs, and the tariff-free importation of many types of 
optical disc equipment, all to serve the interests of foreign 
corporations and further tilt the playing field in their favor. 
We therefore urge the subcommittee to reject these bills, and 
any future similar bills.
    [An attachment is being retained in Committee files.]
      

                                


                    International Electronics Manufacturers
                                   and Consumers of America
                                             Washington, DC
                                                       May 19, 2000

The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795--Committee Request for Comments on 
Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Measures

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf of the International Electronics 
Manufacturers and Consumers of America (``IEMCA''), to endorse 
legislation to provide tariff relief for machinery and components used 
to make digital versatile discs (DVDs).
    IEMCA is a trade association founded in 1987 and located in 
Washington, D.C. IEMCA's principal members are major manufacturers of 
consumer electronics; optical, telecommunications, and computer 
products; DVDs and DVD machinery. IEMCA's associate members are leading 
electronics retailers. The U.S. investment of IEMCA's members and their 
direct suppliers exceeds $75 billion, their annual U.S. sales exceed 
$100 billion, and they employ over 300,000 American workers.
    IEMCA advocates enactment of legislation, H.R. 3778 through H.R. 
3795, introduced by Congressman Collins (R., Georgia), with Congressmen 
Boehner (R., Ohio), Kuykendall (R., California), and Matsui (D., 
California). This legislation will increase U.S. employment, reduce 
U.S. production costs, enable domestic producers to be more competitive 
in this important sector of the electronics industry, and, we believe, 
harm no domestic producers. It will also help to deter widespread 
piracy of software and entertainment media around the world by 
encouraging DVD production in the U.S., where anti-piracy laws are 
strongest.

DVD Technology.

    DVDs, using cutting-edge optical disc technology, provide consumers 
the highest quality audio and video reproduction. Used in DVD players, 
as part of home theater systems, and in DVD-ROM-equipped computers, 
these discs have grown enormously in popularity since their 
introduction in 1997. In three years, sales of DVDs have grown from 8 
million units annually to a projected 586 million units in 2000. In 
fact, it is expected that DVD technology will replace both 
videocassette tapes and video laser discs as the preferred medium for 
presentation of movies in the home.
    There are at least 17 domestic producers of DVDs, including 
Hitachi, JVC, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony, and Time Warner.
    DVDs are the ``next generation'' recorded video media in the 
marketplace, succeeding video laser discs (VLDs) that were produced in 
the early 1990s. Recent advancements in technology enable DVDs to hold 
more recordings on smaller discs than VLDs. The machines that make DVDs 
consist of several components (including a master recording system, a 
replicating system, and such individual machines as a laser encoder and 
an injection mold machine) that function together to produce DVDs.
    In 1994, Congress passed new, duty-free tariff legislation for VLD 
manufacturing machines. It helped companies like Time Warner (WEA 
Manufacturing) create and save jobs in the U.S. that were threatened as 
a result of foreign production of CDs and VLDs. Importantly, the 1994 
legislation did not adversely affect any U.S. company because the 
industry-standard optical disc technology, such as that used in VLDs 
and DVDs, was first developed overseas.
    Shortly after enactment of the legislation allowing duty-free 
import of machines that make VLDs, home video entertainment shifted to 
DVDs. Production was shifted from VLDs to DVDs using substantially the 
same systems, and companies like Panasonic began manufacturing DVDs in 
the U.S. Accordingly, a proper interpretation of existing law would 
accord DVD manufacturing machines the same duty-free treatment as VLD 
manufacturing machines. The Customs Service, however, has ruled that 
DVD manufacturing machines are not explicitly named in current law, and 
that the components of DVD manufacturing machines should be classified 
under several separate tariff headings, bearing an average duty of 3 
percent. This ruling has had the effect of negating the benefits that 
Congress intended when it passed legislation in 1994.

Benefits.

    The proposed legislation would help make domestic DVD manufacturers 
more competitive with foreign DVD manufacturers. Competition from 
Taiwan, Japan, and the European Union in particular is very strong. A 
recent study indicated that some overseas competitors are trying to 
sell their DVD discs in the U.S. at a price as low as 75 cents each, 
compared to a cost of $1.61 for domestic production.
    There is also a major anomaly in DVD manufacture and import: Duties 
on imported DVDs (up to 2.7 percent) are lower than duties on DVD 
manufacturing machines themselves (up to 4.4 percent), a fact which 
encourages foreign production at the expense of domestic production. 
The proposed legislation would remove this anomaly, thereby stimulating 
U.S. jobs in DVD manufacturing in the U.S.
    According to industry analysts, demand for DVDs is expected to rise 
from 586 million units in 2000 to 2.3 billion units in 2003. Demand for 
DVDs is expected to increase further as recordable DVDs come on line in 
2001. This market development will be enhanced by the legislation 
advocated by IEMCA.
    The proposed legislation also will protect U.S. intellectual 
property rights. Movie studios have invested heavily in the protection 
of movie content for DVDs. Keeping production of DVDs in the U.S., 
rather than in countries that have weaker intellectual property laws 
and enforcement, will help prevent the mass piracy of software that 
occurs overseas.
    IEMCA believes that the enactment of the legislation providing 
duty-free entry of DVD machinery and components will not injure any 
domestic producer.
    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IEMCA strongly supports 
prompt enactment of H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                                Keith Smith
                                                 Executive Director
    [Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
      

                                


                                                       May 18, 2000
The Honorable Bill Archer
House Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Archer:

    Recently, I joined my colleagues, Representatives Mac Collins, John 
Boehner, and Bob Matsui, to introduce legislation suspending the duties 
on the machinery and components necessary for the manufacture of 
digital versatile discs (DVDs). I urge that these bills be included in 
the Committee's miscellaneous tariff package that it will consider 
shortly.
    Our legislation, represented by House Resolutions 3778-3795, is 
intended to help domestic DVD manufacturers compete against companies 
who make DVDs in Hong Kong and Taiwan at half the cost. One of the 
reasons for this lower cost is that these countries do not face the 
prospect of paying duties on the manufacturing equipment.
    I am particularly supportive of this legislation because one of the 
major domestic manufacturing companies, Panasonic Disc Services, is 
located in my district. Although a major player in the domestic disc 
market, Panasonic is just one of 17 domestic companies manufacturing 
16.6 million discs annually, to serve entertainment industry companies 
such as Universal, Paramount, and Disney. None of the equipment 
necessary to manufacture DVDs is made in the United States. It must all 
be imported. Although DVDs are arguably the next generation of video 
laser disc technology that receives tariff-free treatment, the Customs 
Service ruled that DVD manufacturing equipment should not be classified 
under these provisions. Instead, Customs indicated that the 17 
different components of DVD manufacturing machines should be classified 
under 11 separate tariff headings, with an average duty of three 
percent.
    The purpose of our legislation is to make clear that the 17 
different components should, like the earlier generation technology, 
receive duty-free treatment. In turn, this will reduce per unit 
production costs for DVDs, helping domestic manufacturers remain 
competitive while ensuring good paying, high-tech jobs for Torrance, 
California, Pickneyville, Illinois and other sites around the country.
    Demand for DVDs worldwide is expected to reach 394 million units 
this year, with much of the production likely to occur in the United 
States. For US companies to remain viable in this exploding 
marketplace, it must receive tariff relief on the production equipment. 
For this reason, I urge the inclusion of these bills within the 
Committee's miscellaneous tariff relief package that it is now 
considering.
    Thank you for considering this request. I am happy to discuss this 
with you in greater detail.
            Sincerely,
                                       Steven T. Kuykendall
                                                 Member of Congress
      

                                


Statement of Richard L. Wilkinson, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Optical Disc Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, California

    My name is Richard L. Wilkinson, and I am President and CEO 
of Optical Disc Corporation (ODC). ODC is a U.S. manufacturer 
of optical disc mastering system machinery and components. ODC 
holds 12 U.S. patents in optical disc technology, and its staff 
was part of the U.S. team that developed the world's first 
optical disc masters, video laser discs (VLDs) and recordable 
laser videodiscs (RLVs). We are deeply concerned about bills 
H.R. 3778 through H.R. 3795 which would suspend import tariffs 
on foreign machinery and components used to manufacture digital 
versatile discs (DVDs) as well as amend all HTS production 
classification codes to include equipment used to manufacture 
DVDs. The legislation would be detrimental to the U.S. 
government, domestic equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and, 
ultimately, U.S. consumers.
    Suspending import tariffs on the equipment our foreign 
competitors provide to the U.S. customer base would provide 
them with an unfair trade advantage over domestic competition. 
During our 17 years in business, we have seen large direct 
foreign competitors, including Toolex International/ODME, Sony 
and Panasonic, Nimbus, and others enter the market with their 
own government-backed programs for financing, reducing prices, 
and driving down our pricing structures and profits. We 
estimate that the current foreign trade advantages have 
directly resulted in a 75 percent loss in U.S. market share for 
ODC.
    Contrary to statements made by proponents of this 
legislation, the U.S. has at least three major suppliers of 
optical disc manufacturing equipment. These suppliers serve 
both domestic and international customers and are supported by 
thousands of U.S.-based sub-suppliers. There are also well over 
300 optical disc manufacturers and VHS duplication houses in 
the U.S. that have the potential to evolve into DVD producers.
    This legislation would impact a greater marketplace and 
involve much greater loses in tariff revenue for the U.S., 
potentially in the multiple millions of dollars, than what has 
been conveyed by the bills' proponents. The bills would not 
only impact suppliers of optical disc manufacturing equipment, 
but would also have significant impacts on the companies that 
supply optical disc manufacturers. Suspending these import 
tariffs would have a significant ripple effect that would 
negatively impact many hundreds of U.S. companies and thousands 
of domestic jobs. We strongly oppose these bills.
    If any of these bills became law, they would effectively 
eliminate tariff duties on all optical disc manufacturing 
equipment, not just DVDs. Foreign suppliers would easily be 
able to claim their compact disc (CD) and multi-format 
production equipment as ``DVD equipment'' in order to evade 
customs tariffs. In most cases, the equipment used to produce 
DVDs is actually multi-format equipment that can produce other 
formats as well, including:
     CD-ROM (retail computer software),
     CD-Audio (music CDs),
     Discs for game consoles,
     CD-R, and
     Various types of hybrid discs.
    In addition, DVD equipment that is not multi-format is 
designed to be easily reconfigured for CD production.
    The representations of the bills' proponents not 
withstanding, DVD is not simply a replacement of the video 
laser disc (VLD). DVD, unlike the VLD, was originally designed 
to be a generic digital data carrier, not just a movie medium. 
Uses for DVD include movie distribution, video console games, 
video presentations and advertising, computer software, audio, 
and others. Therefore it is important to recognize that, unlike 
VLD tariff legislation passed in 1994, the customs tariff 
exemptions embodied in these bills would be applied to 
equipment that serves a much larger marketplace.
    The VLD experience, however, does offer a glimpse of what 
the impact of these bills would be. After the 1994 legislation 
that suspended tariffs on VLD equipment, U.S. manufacturers of 
high quality VLD equipment could no longer compete in the 
domestic marketplace. After 1994, all new VLD mastering 
equipment started coming from Japan and was installed in U.S. 
plants owned by Japanese equipment manufacturers. Eventually, 
foreign manufacturers moved all of their VLD production from 
the U.S., back to their own countries.
    Contrary to statements made by the proponents of these 
bills, it is not true that jobs are being lost to foreign 
entities because of the current import tariffs. By continuing 
to allow U.S. equipment companies to have a domestic trade 
advantage, CD/DVD manufacturing equipment jobs in the U.S. will 
remain steady or grow. The proposed bills will only benefit 
foreign competitors and stimulate the economies of foreign 
governments.
    Further, jobs that might be created by expanded DVD 
production can only mean the net loss of jobs in the VHS tape 
duplication industry. The majority of DVD production in the 
U.S. is used for the release of movies, which is in direct 
competition with the current U.S. VHS tape duplication 
industry. The domestic VHS tape duplication industry has almost 
no competition from anywhere else in the world. Ultimately, 
most industry experts agree that the VHS duplication industry 
will be replaced by the DVD replication industry. Thus any of 
the supposed benefits to domestic DVD production will be at the 
expense of the domestic VHS industry.
    We would like to clarify that, in spite of suggestions by 
our foreign competitors to the contrary, in-line mastering 
systems compete directly with modular/batch mastering systems 
in the same market. To clarify, in-line systems are those that 
complete all of the components of the process sequentially as 
to each DVD master. Modular/batch systems complete work on each 
component as to a group of masters before proceeding to the 
next component. H.R. 3780 defines DVD mastering machinery as an 
``in-line system machine,'' which is how some foreign 
competitors define their mastering equipment. We believe that 
this ``in-line system machine'' definition may be an attempt to 
confuse the issue and to make it appear that this type of 
equipment is not currently manufactured in the U.S. The 
machinery should be referred to as ``mastering equipment'' or 
``mastering systems,'' which can be designed either as an in-
line style or modular/batch style system. Both are automated 
mastering systems. Both provide the same function and product--
CD and DVD master discs.
    Optical Disc Corporation's mastering systems have a 
modular/batch design, and incorporate the complete set of 
components necessary to produce master discs (see The ODC 
Mastering System--Introduction). ODC is also currently 
developing an in-line system, which is being planned for 
release in late 2000.
    Panasonic Disc Services Corporation (PDSC), a vocal 
proponent of these bills, has argued that ``Optical Disc 
Corporation (U.S. Company) makes the laser encoder, a major 
component of the mastering system, but their machines use 
technology that is incompatible with PDSC technology.'' (see 
May 2, 2000 letter to Hon. Lynn Bragg from Robert B. Pfannkuch, 
page 2) Essentially PDSC is supporting this legislation as 
necessary because they claim there is no domestically-made 
equipment available that is compatible with their systems. 
However, on July 23, 1998, Mitchell Brown, General Manager, 
Manufacturing and Process Engineering at PDSC sent an e-mail to 
staff at ODC confirming the compatibility of ODC's mastering 
technology with their own (see July 23, 1998 e-mail--
Replication Tests using Optical Disc Corporation Stampers). We 
believe these sorts misrepresentations should pose serious 
concerns regarding the credibility and motives of PDSC as a 
proponent of this legislation.
    We do not think it is appropriate to enact legislation that 
is detrimental to the success of U.S. manufacturers nationwide. 
We do not believe Congress should consider providing foreign 
companies, which already dominate the U.S. marketplace, with 
such a strong competitive advantage when U.S. companies, such 
as ODC, remain levied with tariffs whenever we sell the same 
type of equipment into their countries. Eliminating import 
tariffs for foreign entities without the elimination of tariffs 
on U.S. goods imported overseas would ultimately place U.S. 
firms at an even greater trade disadvantage and burden the U.S. 
government with an even wider trade imbalance.
    We urge you to consider the potentially significant adverse 
implications of enacting legislation such as this, and we hope 
that you will ultimately oppose these bills, or others like 
them in the future.
    [Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
      

                                


                                           Panasonic       
                                               Torrance, CA
                                                       May 19, 2000

The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 3778-3795--Committee Request for Comments on Miscellaneous 
Tariff and Technical Measures

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    As President of Panasonic Disc Services Corporation (PDSC) in 
Torrance, California, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 
3778-3795, duty-suspension legislation for machinery used to 
manufacture digital versatile discs (DVDs), introduced by Congressman 
Mac Collins, and co-sponsored, by Congressman Steve Kuykendall, 
representing our factory; Congressman Bob Matsui, representing JVC, 
another DVD manufacturer; and Congressman John Boehner, representing 
other Panasonic facilities. PDSC was established in 1996 and is the 
world's first DVD-only replication facility. It is a subsidiary of 
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., one of the leading developers 
and producers of digital electronic products for the home and office.
    Consumers use DVDs both in DVD players as part of a home theatre 
system and in DVD-ROM equipped computers. Based on the growing demand 
for DVD, the industry expects, ultimately, that DVDs will replace both 
videocassette tapes and video laser discs for home viewing. The leading 
DVD producers, such as Panasonic, Sony, Warner, Nimbus/Technicolor, 
Deluxe Digital (formerly Pioneer), JVC, and Sonopress, make discs for 
such movie studios as Universal, Paramount, Columbia TriStar, and MGM. 
All use predominantly imported DVD machinery. Like most of our 
competitors, PDSC uses an integrated line of machines to make DVDs, 
sourced to our specifications from a number of overseas companies, 
including Panasonic.
    DVDs are the ``next generation'' video media for the marketplace, 
succeeding video laser discs (VLDs) that were produced from the early 
1970s through the 1990s. Both VLD and DVD manufacturing machines create 
a master, using a laser encoder to create pits on optical recording 
media, and then the information on the master is replicated. Although 
VLD manufacturing machines enter the United States under one duty-free 
tariff provision, the Customs Service ruled that DVD manufacturing 
machines must enter the United States under eleven separate tariff 
headings, with an average tariff of 3 percent. The total duties on an 
average line, therefore, are approximately $75,000.
    There are only a limited number of DVD disc manufacturers in the 
United States. This group is small because the technology is still new, 
the initial investment cost in establishing a production line is high, 
and every manufacturer must have a guaranteed source of content for the 
discs, which currently is predominantly from the movie studios. For 
instance, PDSC makes discs for Universal, Fox, and Paramount; and 
Warner makes discs for Warner, New Line, MGM and Artisan.
    There are two major operations in making DVDs--mastering and 
replication. The mastering system used by PDSC consists of a series of 
steps to make the ``master'' copy and uses the industry standard 
photoresist technology. The first step is the preparation of a glass 
substrate by chemically cleaning and polishing the glass. Next, the 
glass substrate is loaded into the in-line mastering machine for a 
mechanical cleaning and a photoresist coating. The newly created glass 
master is then transferred automatically to the laser beam recorder. 
The recording machine modulates the laser to record information onto 
the surface of the photoresist, creating a layer of digitally recorded 
information. After rinsing the glass master with a developing solution, 
the result is a series of digitally encoded pits in the surface of the 
photoresist. A sputtering machine then deposits a thin film of nickel 
onto the surface of the master, and the master then is cycled through 
an electrolytic plating bath. The electrolytic nickel layer of bumps, 
carefully removed from the master disc, is called a ``stamper.'' An 
ashing machine cleans the stamper's surface, a lapping machine polishes 
the back of the stamper; and a center hole is punched in the stamper to 
complete the mastering process.
    The replication process (making copies from the ``stamper'') 
consists of three major and separate manufacturing operations. First, 
during the molding process, the stampers are installed in custom DVD 
molds and, using injection molding machines, the mold cavities are 
filled with a polycarbonate molding resin. As this molding resin cools 
in the mold cavity, it replicates the layer of bumps on the stamper as 
pits in the plastic substrates. The molded substrate is now an exact 
copy of the original master. Second, during the metalizing process, the 
encoded substrates are coated with a reflective metal layer. The 
encoded side of the single-sided replica is sputtered with a reflective 
layer of aluminum. The top-side layer of a dual layer disc (layer 1) is 
sputtered with aluminum. The bottom layer of the dual layer disc (layer 
0) is sputtered with gold. The aluminum-coated substrates and the gold-
coated substrates are then stacked on separate spindles before the 
final bonding process. During the bonding process, an adhesive is 
dispensed between the two substrate layers. A DVD-5 has one encoded 
aluminum substrate and one clear ``dummy'' substrate. A DVD-9, dual 
layer disc, has one encoded aluminum substrate and one encoded gold 
substrate. The UV bonding resin is cured using UV light to create a 
permanent bond between the substrates. An optical inspection machine or 
laser scanner checks each disc for defects. Finally, label art is 
printed on the backside using an offset or silk-screen printing method, 
and the finished DVDs are then packaged and wrapped.
    Although there are a number of manufacturers of CD equipment (a 
similar technology), only a limited number of companies, called 
integrators (e.g., Panasonic, Sony, and Toolex), provide a full DVD 
production system, sourcing from a number of companies, predominantly 
located overseas. A DVD mastering system, consisting of eight separate 
machines designed to work together, uses very advanced technology, and 
consequently has only a few manufacturers. Examples of integrators that 
provide mastering system equipment, are Panasonic, Sony, Toolex, 
Nimbus, and Optical Disc Corporation. Examples of integrators that 
provide replication system equipment are Panasonic, Singulus, Marubeni, 
and FirstLight. Other companies produce the individual machines or 
``batch'' systems for either the mastering or replication process, but 
do not produce the entire DVD production system.
    Between our facility in Torrance, California and a joint venture 
with Universal Music in Pinckneyville, Illinois, we employ over 1000 
employees, and we anticipate PDSC employment to be 1,500 by 2003. By 
July 2000, the two plants will be producing 5.2 million DVD discs per 
month on 22 lines; and by 2001, we plan to be producing 10 million DVD 
discs per month. To meet these projected numbers and an increasing 
consumer demand, we anticipate the need for additional lines and plan 
to have 66 lines running by 2004. In fact, the DVD machinery industry 
estimates that within three years there will be a demand for 92 new 
mastering systems and 275 new replicating systems valued at $600 
million. However, that investment is small compared to the value of the 
discs they will produce. By 2003, the industry expects to be making 227 
billion DVD discs per year, at a retail value of $136 billion.
    Currently the U.S. industry faces competition from overseas makers 
of DVD discs who are trying to sell their discs at one-half the cost of 
production in the United States. In addition, the average 3 percent 
U.S. tariff on machines to make DVDs is higher than the EU tariff of 
1.7 percent and the 0 percent tariff in Japan, and the 2.7 percent 
tariff on the imported DVD discs themselves is lower than the average 3 
percent duty on the imported machinery. Reduced production costs for 
PDSC and other DVD disc manufacturers in the United States would help 
the DVD industry be more competitive and ensure the growth of 
employment in the United States as the demand for DVDs grows 
dramatically. This legislation would alleviate that unfairness.
    In addition, the proposed legislation will protect U.S. 
intellectual property rights. Because of strong IP laws in the United 
States, domestic production of DVDs would reduce the threat of 
international digital piracy of software by encouraging more production 
in the United States, rather than in Taiwan and other Asian countries. 
Movie studios have invested heavily in the protection of movie content 
for DVDs and fear an increased threat of piracy with the shift to the 
DVD format. Keeping production in the United States, rather than in 
countries that can produce DVD discs cheaper but have weaker 
intellectual property laws and enforcement, will help prevent the mass 
piracy of software overseas.
    Therefore, we believe duty-suspension legislation for DVD machinery 
would be beneficial to the United States and the growing domestic DVD 
industry, and should be supported by the U.S. Congress.

            Sincerely,

                                        Robert B. Pfannkuch
                                                          President
      

                                


                                      Sony Electronics Inc.
                                         Woodcliff Lake, NJ
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Archer:

    On behalf of Sony Electronics, I wish to express our strong support 
for H.R. 3778-H.R. 3795, duty suspension legislation for machinery used 
in the manufacture of digital versatile discs (DVDs). Our facility in 
Terre Haute, Indiana, which opened in 1983 as the first compact disc 
production facility in the United States, will soon employ over 1,100 
employees. Sony is adding 25 new DVD production lines, quintupling our 
current output from 2 million discs per month to 10 million.
    Currently, the U.S. Customs Service classifies the machinery used 
to master and replicate DVD discs in a number of separate tariff 
heading with average duties of three percent. Consequently, over 
several years, Sony has paid substantial duties on this machinery, and 
we anticipate continued sizeable duties in the future. Because of 1994 
tariff reduction legislation, machinery for manufacturing ``previous 
generation'' laser video discs (the precursor to current technology) 
enters the United States duty-free.
    As you may know, consumer demand for this popular new digital 
technology is growing rapidly. Consumers are buying both DVD players as 
part of a home theater or mobile entertainment system and DVD-ROM 
equipped computers. In fact, in three years, U.S. companies have sold 
5.4 million DVD players and analysts predict the sale of an additional 
10 million units by the end of the year. Our industry is struggling to 
keep up with the incredible demand for discs to play on these machines. 
In fact, in the same three years, consumer demand for DVD discs has 
grown from eight million to 394 million discs, as analysts expect. By 
the year 2003, demand is expected to be 2.27 billion at an estimated ex 
factory value of $6.8 billion.
    However, the DVD disc industry faces competition from overseas 
manufacturers that are trying to sell their discs in the United States 
at half U.S. production costs. Elimination of tariffs on the imported 
machinery used to manufacture DVD discs would reduce U.S. production 
costs and would enable the U.S. producers of DVDs to maintain our 
competitiveness in this important area of growth for the electronics 
industry.
    In addition, because of strong intellectual property laws in the 
United States, domestic production of DVDs reduces the risk of 
international digital piracy. Movie studios, such as Sony Pictures, 
have invested heavily in the protection of movie content for DVDs, but 
see an increased threat of piracy with the shift to DVD technology. The 
United States can prevent the mass overseas piracy by keeping the 
production of DVDs in the United States, rather than allowing overseas 
production in countries that have weaker intellectual property laws and 
enforcement.
    Sony Electronics believes this legislation is good for U.S. high-
technology employment, will reduce U.S. production costs, and will 
enable U.S. companies to compete favorably in the world. Therefore, we 
urge the Ways and Means Committee to give the legislation favorable 
consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                                Jim Palumbo
                                              Senior Vice President
                                                   External Affairs
      

                                


                                               Toolex USA  
                                                 Irvine, CA
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1100 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 3778-H.R. 3795--Committee Press Release TR-20, Request for 
Comments on Miscellaneous Tariff and Technical Measures

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of Toolex USA, Inc. headquartered in Irvine, California, 
I am writing to express my strong support for H.R. 3778 -H.R. 3795, 
legislation providing tariff relief for machinery used in the 
manufacture of digital versatile discs (``DVDs''). Our parent company, 
Toolex International is one of the world's largest producers of 
machines used for the manufacture of optical discs such as video laser 
discs (``VLDs'') and digital versatile discs (``DVDs''). Headquartered 
in the Netherlands, Toolex has operations in the United States and 
throughout the world. Toolex designs, engineers, manufactures, sells, 
services and assembles a complete line of optical discs manufacturing 
equipment, including equipment specifically used for the manufacture of 
DVDs.
    The worldwide market for optical disc media is growing 
exponentially and the demand for machines that produce this media is 
dramatically increasing as well. From 8 million DVD discs sold in 1997, 
industry analysts anticipate year 2000 sales to exceed 580 million, 
with over 2.3 billion discs expected to be purchased by 2003. U.S. 
sales of DVD players are expected to reach 10 million units by the end 
of this year. It is expected that DVDs will replace both VLDs and 
videocassette tapes as the preferred medium for the presentation of 
movies in the home.
    In March 2000, Toolex USA, Inc. made a multi-million dollar 
investment in relocating its headquarters and manufacturing operations 
to an expanded state-of-the-art facility in Irvine, CA. There, Toolex 
USA produces complete mastering machines for compact discs (``CDs''), 
which complement our complete lines of optical disc manufacturing 
equipment currently produced in Europe. In the next several months, 
Toolex USA will also be producing substrates for use with both CD and 
DVD mastering machines. Additionally, given the extraordinary demand 
for DVDs, Toolex USA expects to begin producing mastering and 
replication systems for the DVD manufacturing industry later this year. 
As a domestic manufacturer, Toolex USA strongly supports this 
legislation because it will increase the size of the U.S. DVD market, 
benefiting U.S. equipment producers because there will be more sales of 
both mastering and replication systems. U.S. consumers will also 
benefit from lower cost DVDs.
    As a result of a U.S. Customs Service ruling last year, equipment 
used to master and replicate DVDs is classified under a variety of 
tariff headings with an average duty rate of three percent. However, 
machinery for manufacturing earlier generation video laser discs 
(``VLDs'') which is very similar to the equipment used for DVD 
production today--enters duty-free, due to tariff reduction legislation 
enacted by Congress in 1994. Consequently, our U.S. customers--the 
domestic DVD manufacturers--are paying duties amounting to millions of 
dollars annually, which places them in a less competitive position vis-
a-vis DVD manufacturers in Japan, Taiwan, China and the European Union.
    In addition, due to an anomaly in the U.S. tariff schedules, 
imports of finished DVDs enter the United States at a lower duty rate 
than imports of machinery used to manufacture the discs, thus placing 
U.S. DVD manufacturers at a further disadvantage with their foreign 
competitors. As DVD manufacturing is a fairly low profit-margin 
business, the relatively small decrease in the U.S. duty rates for 
machinery will translate into a significant advantage for American DVD 
producers. To further illustrate the worldwide competitive environment, 
a recent industry study indicates that some foreign DVD manufacturers 
are attempting sell finished discs in the United States at prices as 
low as 75 cents each, compared to a U.S. production cost of $1.61. 
Clearly, reduced production costs will help American DVD manufacturers 
be more competitive and will ensure the continued and growing 
employment of American workers in these companies.
    The temporary duty suspension legislation will also help U.S. DVD 
manufacturers remain competitive in the export market. Currently, DVD 
mastering systems may be imported into Japan duty-free. The European 
Union charges an essentially nuisance tariff of 1.7 percent--
approximately one-half the rate imposed by the United States. As the 
development and refinement of optical disc technology that is now the 
industry standard was pioneered in Europe and Japan in the 1980's, 
production of DVD manufacturing equipment has been predominantly 
foreign. Imports of this machinery currently account for virtually all 
of the market in the United States.
    Finally, industry surveys indicate that there are no anticipated 
imports of VLD manufacturing machines. As DVD is simply the next 
generation of VLD, and importantly, there is no production of VLD 
machinery, any loss of revenue associated with this legislation should 
be offset against the duties gained through Customs' reclassification 
of DVD machines. The proposed legislation does not result in any loss 
of revenue, but merely clarifies existing legislation and international 
commitments to provide duty free treatment to optical disc 
manufacturing equipment used to produce home videos. Toolex USA would 
like to emphasize that to the extent there is any revenue loss created 
by the proposed legislation, this possible loss would be more than 
offset by the revenue generated by the creation of DVD manufacturing 
jobs in the United States.
    In summary, Toolex USA believes that this legislation, which is 
good for U.S. high-tech employment, clearly will reduce U.S. DVD 
manufacturing costs and will enable U.S. companies to compete favorably 
in the world. We urge the Congress to approve H.R. 3778-H.R. 3795 as 
soon as possible.

            Sincerely,

                                            Arnold S. Block
                                           Executive Vice President

    ASB/ck
      

                                


H.R. 3779

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3780

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3781

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3782

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3783

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3784

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3785

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3786

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3787

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3788

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3789

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3790

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3791

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the maunfacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3792

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3793

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3794

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3795

    To suspend temporarily the duty on machines, and their 
parts, for use in the manufacture of digital versatile discs 
(DVDs).

             see Digital Matrix Corporation under H.R. 3778

      see International Electronics Manufacturers under H.R. 3778

             see Hon. Steven T. Kuykendall under H.R. 3778

              see Optical Disc Corporation under H.R. 3778

               see Panasonic Disc Service under H.R. 3778

               see Sony Electronics Inc., under H.R. 3778

                     see Toolex USA under H.R. 3778

      

                                


H.R. 3796

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid.
      

                                


                                                       May 18, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing to offer my comments in support of H.R. 3796, which 
would suspend duties on 4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (``MCPA'').
    As an effective herbicide used to control a variety of broadleaved 
weeds in a large number of agricultural crops, there would be an 
important cost savings from the suspension of the relatively high 9.3% 
duty on this important agricultural input. In these times of low 
commodity prices, the ability of agricultural producers to continue 
reducing their costs of production, it is critical to any possibility 
of profitability for our farmers.
    These savings also find their way to US consumers that ultimately 
are benefited by lower costs of agricultural production.
    These cost savings to US growers and consumers are achieved without 
any effect on US manufacturers. There are no domestic producers of MCPA 
in the United States. Thus no domestic industry is threatened by the 
suspension of duties under H.R. 3796.
    In addition, the suspension of duties and lowering of costs on 
imported MCPA will allow for expansion of employment in my district and 
other sites in the United States. Moreover, the duty free importation 
of MCPA should increase export opportunities throughout NAFTA and other 
export markets, which will result in added manufacturing, distribution 
and related administrative employment positions.
    Because of the critical cost savings to agriculture, and the 
opportunity to generate new jobs from duty free imports of MCPA, I 
submit that it will ultimately benefit the economy of the United States 
to forego the duty revenue on this imported product in lieu of 
commensurate advantages to the US economy from duty suspension.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Pat Danner
                                                 Member of Congress
      

                                


                                   Nufarm                  
                                       St. Joseph, MO 64506
                                                       May 18, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.

RE: Written Comments Supporting Duty Suspension Bill H.R. 3796 (4-
Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA))

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Pursuant to Advisory TR-20 dated April 20, 2000, we respectfully 
submit these supportive comments on behalf of Nufarm Limited and Nufarm 
America's, Inc. with respect to H.R. 3796 which concerns the suspension 
of duty on 4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA).
    MCPA is a plant growth regulator-type herbicide used to effectively 
control a wide variety of broadleaved weeds in cereals, grasses, 
orchards, grapes, flax, sugarcane, pulses, and non-crop areas. MCPA is 
currently classified under HTSUS No. 2918.90.2015 with a duty rate of 
9.3%. However, imports are duty free under the Generalized System of 
Preferences with the exception of India, the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the United States-Israel 
Free Trade Area, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada 
and Mexico).
    There are no manufacturers of MCPA in the United States. Because 
MCPA is not domestically produced and is used in crop protection for 
numerous agricultural crops grown in the United States, the market 
demand will continue to be met by imports. Furthermore, the suspension 
of duties is not expected to result in a price changes that will 
substantially change market demand. Thus, there are no grounds on which 
to anticipate significant changes in import levels resulting from duty 
suspension.
    MCPA has a substantial end use as an input for agricultural 
application and production. Thus the cost savings from duty will be 
strategically important agricultural commodity growers who are 
presently experiencing significant price and cost pressures. These duty 
savings in part will ultimate benefit the end consumer.
    The imported MCPA affected by HR 3796 is involved in significant 
downstream production activity. Imported acid product is further 
processed into amines and esters, or blended into branded product and 
other active ingredients, or formulated into lesser concentrates of 
amines and esters at numerous general formulators throughout the United 
States. Approximately ten formulators in the United States with over 20 
operation sites, in addition to approximately 2-3 local smaller or 
family owned blenders per state throughout the United States will 
benefit from lower cost and possibly expanded use of duty free 
product..
    The suspension of duty on MCPA will also create significant export 
activity for US producers and formulators. As you are aware, the North 
American agricultural commodity market is a major market for 
agricultural inputs, including crop protection materials. US producers 
and formulators of MCPA based products would have more competitive 
access to the significant Canadian and Mexican markets were duty to be 
suspended.
    Presently under NAFTA requirements, when imported product enters 
the United States duty free under bond for formulating or further 
processing (i.e, a TIB under HTS 9813.00.05), any subsequent export to 
a NAFTA country triggers payment of US duty on the base material 
entered under bond as if it were entered for consumption in the United 
States. (19 CFR 181.53(A)(2)(i)). That relatively high 9.3% duty must 
be born in any cost structure of exports to Canada or Mexico, and 
therefore makes US produced product less price competitive. If US duty 
were suspended on imported MCPA, US producers and formulators could 
export more competitively a wide variety of blended and formulated 
products in North America without this cost burden
    Because the current tariff rate is staged and is reduced annually, 
any loss of revenue will be decreased in the coming years. In addition, 
this product is an agricultural input designated for possible 
multilateral duty elimination in the ``Zero for Zero'' initiative 
supported by the United States. Thus, revenues from duties on this 
product may be eliminated through this avenue in the future even if 
duty were not suspended under this bill.
    For the above stated reasons, we strongly support the suspension of 
duty on MCPA in H.R. 3796.

            Sincerely yours,
      

                                


                                       United Agri Products
                                                Greeley, CO
                                                        May 18,2000

A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Written comments supporting suspension bill H.R. 3796 (4-chloro-Z-
methylacetic acid, its salts and esters (``MCPA'')).

Dear Mr. Singleton,

    I wish to express my support in suspension of duties on (4-chloro-
Z-methylacetic acid, it's salts and esters (``MCPA'')) in conjunction 
with HR 3796.
    MCPA is an important agronomic tool in controlling a variety of 
broadleaf weeds in a vast number of small grain and feed crops in the 
U.S.
    As we are all aware, today's agriculture economy demands the most 
effective, low cost on ag inputs in crop production. MCPA with it's 
9.3% duty is one of these inputs.
    There are no U.S. manufacturers of MCPA . Therefore, it is of no 
economic disadvantage to the U.S. industry. I submit that suspension of 
duty would effectively enhance the American farmers' profitability. It 
would also enable my company to fully utilize U.S. owned assets to 
participate in NAFTA nation export without the 9.3% penalty , which now 
exists.

            Very Truly Yours,

                                                 James Sell
                                       Vice President, Distribution
                                               United Agri Products
      

                                


H.R. 3797

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, its salts and esters.
      

                                


                                                       May 18, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing to offer my comments in support of H.R. 3797 which 
would suspend duties on (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Its Salts and 
Esters (``2,4-D'')).
    One of the first herbicides to be registered in the United States, 
2,4-D is extensively used in agriculture because of its efficacy, low 
toxicity, and cost-effectiveness. It thus is a necessary product for 
the American farmer in today's climate of low commodity prices.
    Consequently, the suspension of the relatively high duty rate of 
9.3% on this imported product represents a substantial savings on this 
important agricultural input. Such a savings not only helps American 
growers to compete more profitably in current depressed markets, but 
consumers also benefit from the reduction in costs represented by the 
duty suspension.
    The suspension of duty on 2,4-D will also enhance the U.S. economy 
through creation of jobs in my district as well as other cities in the 
United States, and through additional added export opportunities under 
NAFTA. With additional supplies of duty free 2,4-D acid, herbicide 
product formulators will be able to access the important Canadian and 
Mexican markets without having to absorb the competitive disadvantage 
of the 9.3% duty cost.
    These savings and opportunities for the US economy are achieved 
without apparent harm to any US industry. The single US producer of 
2,4-D holds a dominant market share that has not been effected 
detrimentally by the majority of imports of 2,4-D that already are low-
priced and duty free under the Generalized System of Preferences. 
Consequently, the suspension of duty on the one company which pays 
duties on the imported product would not appear to have any detrimental 
effect on US production that heretofore has not been affected by the 
larger volumes of lower-priced, duty-free imports.
    With critical cost savings to agricultural growers and US 
consumers, with new employment and export opportunities, and with no 
apparent detrimental effect on the US industry, the suspension of 
duties on 2,4-D will be a worthwhile action by Congress. I therefore 
support the suspension of duty under H.R. 3797.
    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Pat Danner
                                                 Member of Congress
      

                                


                               Dow Agro Sciences           
                                Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054
                                                      April 4, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Way and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H. R. 3797--Temporary Suspension of Duty

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    We are writing to register our strong objection to H. R. 3797. A 
bill introduced by Representative Danner from the 6th District of 
Missouri at the request of an Australian competitor of Dow AgroSciences 
LLC. This bill, if enacted, would temporarily suspend the U. S. duty 
rate for three years on at least three related chemicals (identified 
below) that are produced solely by Dow AgroSciences (DAS) in the United 
States. We are asking that the Ways and Means Committee support our 
strong objection by seeking the withdrawal or defeat of H. R. 3797. We 
recognize that the committee has not yet called for public comments on 
this or other recently introduced temporary duty suspension bills, but 
we wanted to make our views known early on H. R. 3797 as it is 
extremely important to DAS.
    We will also be writing similar letters to the U. S. International 
Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce and the U. S. Trade 
Representative in registering our objection to H. R. 3797 for the 
reasons outlined in this letter.
    DAS is the only U. S. producer of 2,4-dichclorophenoxyacetic acid 
(2,4-D), (CAS number 94-75-7), and its salts and esters (different CAS 
numbers) at a plant located in Midland, Michigan. This product, its 
production and the U. S. market for 2,4-D is very important to the 
company. The plant producing 2,4-D employs over 150 people and our 
investment in this plant exceeds $60 million. 2,4-D is one of the most 
widely used herbicides in the U. S. broadleaf market. It is used to 
treat more than 80 million acres each year. The U. S. market for 2,4-D 
is the largest in the world, so it is the only significant target for 
foreign competitors.
    On a more technical point regarding the chemicals named in H. R. 
3797, please note in the text of H. R. 3797 that the CAS number 
indicated (29091-09-6) for 2,4-D is not correct. As noted above, the 
correct CAS number for 2,4-D is 94-75-7. Furthermore, the salts and 
esters of 2,4-D have different CAS numbers, but none are 29091-09-6. 
This CAS number is for 2,4-Dichloro-3,5-dinitrobenzotrifluoride. 
Nevertheless, we believe the intent of H. R. 3797 is to cover 2,4-D, 
and its salts and esters, chemicals DAS produce in Midland, Michigan.
    In recent years, imports of 2,4-D from GSP eligible countries have 
already taken a substantial share of the U. S. market because of the 
duty-free benefit under the GSP program. H. R. 3797 would allow more 
duty-free imports from Australia, the EU, and potentially from other 
countries where 2,4-D is produced. We do not think that a foreign 
manufacturers in a developed country like Australia should be given 
even a temporary suspension of the U. S. duty on their imports of 2,4-
D. If they were to receive such a suspension, it would enable the 
foreign manufacturers to sell their product at a reduced price from 
what it is now, and displace some of the U. S. market share that DAS 
currently has in the domestic market for 2,4-D. Beyond opening the U. 
S. market to three years of no duty on imports from Australia, H. R. 
3797 would also open the U.S. market to imports from European 
manufactures. Currently, they are not competing in the U. S. market 
today because of the applicable U. S. duty that would be assessed to 
their imports. It is also noteworthy that the European Union has a duty 
rate of 6.5% on 2,4-D, and that imports from DAS would to be assessed 
this duty while the U. S. duty would be suspended if H. R. 3797 were 
enacted.
    Another factor that should be considered carefully is the amount of 
revenue from collection of duties that would be lost for the proposed 
three-year period. Based on 1999 U. S. import data, the customs value 
of imports of 2,4-D from Australia were $9,961,495. At the 1999 duty 
rate of 10%, duties collected should have been nearly $1,000,000. As 
you know, suspension of the duty at this level would significantly 
exceed the annual ``PAYGO'' limitations, yet another reason for the 
bill to be withdrawn or defeated.
    DAS has ample production capacity current utilization rates at 
Dow's plant in Midland, Michigan to supply all the domestic demand for 
2,4-D. Imports are not needed to fill this demand, and should certainly 
not be enabled by a temporary suspension of the applicable U. S. 
duties. We would hope, that as the sole U. S. producer of 2,4-D, we 
would have more than adequate justification for our objection to H. R. 
3797. Furthermore, that it would override any request from a foreign 
interest in a developed country to temporarily suspend the U. S. duty 
on imports of 2,4-D, and its salts and esters.
    Clearly, the maintenance of the U. S. duty rate on 2,4-D is an 
important factor for DAS in keeping its 2,4-D plant, production, 
employees and domestic market at operating levels economically viable 
to justify the investments we have made in Michigan and at many other 
U. S. locations where products are formulated from 2,4-D and sold into 
the domestic market. Any future expansion, product development and 
related investment in this important product line are dependent upon 
maintaining the domestic market share we have. Decreases or suspensions 
of U. S. duty will allow more imports to displace market share, thereby 
clearly affecting any realization of new investments in our 2,4-D 
plant, and the related positive economic effects to the U. S. economy 
and agriculture community.
    As the only U. S. producer of 2,4-D, we believe there should be no 
reason for favorable consideration of H. R. 3797. Clearly it is 
controversial at this early stage after its introduction, and should be 
withdrawn. We urge your support of our objection and will appreciate 
the committee's help with the defeat of H. R. 3797 if Representative 
Danner does not withdraw it.
    Please do not hesitate to contact Tom Campbell of Dow AgroSciences 
in our Washington, D. C. office at (202) 429-3438 if you have any 
questions. We would be pleased to meet with you or the appropriate 
committee staff about this matter if you would like to discuss this 
matter directly. Please let us know an appropriate time if you would to 
meet with DAS representatives.

            Sincerely,

                                        Gregory E. McDaniel
                                             Global Business Leader

    Copy: Representative Pat Danner, Trade Subcommittee
      

                                


                                   Nufarm                  
                                       St. Joseph, MO 64506
                                                       May 18, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.

RE: Written Comments Supporting Duty Suspension Bill H.R. 3797 (2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Its Salts and Esters (2,4-D))

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    Pursuant to Advisory TR-20 dated April 20, 2000, we respectfully 
submit these supportive comments on behalf of Nufarm Limited and Nufarm 
America's, Inc. with respect to H.R. 3797 which concerns the suspension 
of duty on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Its Salts and Esters (2,4-
D).
    As some of the first herbicides to be registered in the United 
States, 2,4-D acid, its salts and esters have been widely used in the 
control of broadleaf and woody plants on rangelands, lawns, golf 
courses, forests, roadways, parks, and agricultural land, as well as in 
aquatic environments for the control of nuisance aquatic weeds. 
Currently, 2,4-D is classified under HTSUS No. 2918.90.2010 with a duty 
rate of 9.3%. Imports of 2,4-D are duty free under the Generalized 
System of Preferences with the exception of India, the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the United 
States-Israel Free Trade Area, and the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (Canada and Mexico).
    Although there are substitutable products, none of them are more 
cost effective, and in some cases are more toxic to the environment, 
than 2,4-D. Additionally, 2,4-D is extensively used because of its 
efficacy, low toxicity, and cost-effectiveness, thus making it a 
necessary product for the American farmer in today's climate of low 
commodity prices.
    There is a significant barrier to entry for any imports, in that 
manufacturers of 2,4-D that are able to access the US market include 
only the members of a 2,4-D industry Task Force that have product 
quality similar to the TF II material. The 2,4-D Task Force was formed 
under an exemption from the antitrust laws of the U.S. to allow 
companies requiring the generation of EPA mandated data to collaborate 
on the generation of that data. (The Memorandum of Understanding which 
created the Task Force is attached as Attachment A hereto.) The Task 
Force has gone through a vast amount of change since its inception of 
2,4-D Industry Task Force I to its present form as Industry Task Force 
II. The original Task Force began with thirteen members equally sharing 
the cost of generating data. As TF I came to conclusion it was obvious 
that TF II would see fewer participants with larger expenditures. The 
present total expenditure has eclipsed $30 million and the present 
number of seats has shrunk to four seats representing three full 
memberships and two affiliate memberships.
    Full memberships include: Nufarm Ltd., Dow AgroSciences Agro., 
BASF, and AgroGore; made up of two affiliate members, PBI Gordon and 
Atanor, which is owned 52% by Albaugh.
    The present Task Force is about to complete the battery of data 
generation put out by the EPA and is expecting the EPA to issue the RED 
for 2,4-D sometime next year. The only companies that can utilize the 
data generated in support of their registration are those included as 
full members or affiliated members listed above. These members can use 
the information as outlined in the MOU to support their labels outside 
of the United States. No member or affiliate can extend this 
information outside the control of the TF II
    At the present time the only potential importers of product would 
include Dow AgroSciences (Midland Michigan), Dow AgroSciences, SanaChem 
(South Africa), Nufarm Ltd. (Mebourne Australia), Nufarm (Linz 
Austria), and Atanor (Argentina).

    The U.S. market Share of these companies is as follows:
        Dow AgroSciences    Michigan    33.0 Million Lb.    66%
        Atanor              Argentina    10.0 Million Lb.    20%
        Nufarm Ltd.         Australia    7.0 Million Lb.    14%

    There are nine countries which export 2,4-D to the US. Under the 
Task Force membership as presently constituted, there is only one 
company eligible to import that currently pays duty on imported 
product, i.e. Nufarm. All other imports are duty free under GSP.
    Exports from Argentina and Brazil are GSP duty free and constitute 
63% of US imports. However, with the exception of isolated shipments 
from the UK, France, and Germany, a majority of the duty paid imports 
is from Nufarm Limited facilities in Australia and Austria. As a result 
of this high percentage of GSP shipments, the weighted average value of 
GSP shipments in 1999 was $1.28 per pound, whereas the weighted average 
value of Nufarm Limited shipments in 1999 was 19% higher at $1.52 per 
pound. The difference in the low value of GSP imports and the 19% 
higher value of Nufarm imports suggests that suspension of the 9.3% 
duty will merely cause values of the 37% of imports that were duty paid 
to trend towards a value closer to but still above duty free imports. 
Thus, suspension of duties on 2,4-D will result in savings to US 
growers and ultimately consumers.

Economic Effects

    The following conclusions can be reached from the U.S. Census 
Bureau import data for 2,4-D:
    1. Sixty-three per cent (63%) of all imports are GSP duty free, 
principally from Argentina and Brazil.
    2. With the exception of isolated shipments from the UK, France, 
and Germany, the duty paid imports were from Nufarm facilities in 
Australia and Austria.
    3. The weighted average value of GSP shipments in 1999 was $1.28 
per lb. whereas the weighted average value of Nufarm shipments in 1999 
was 19% higher at $1.52 per lb.
    No deleterious effects on the U.S. economy or industry are 
anticipated from the suspension of duty on 2,4-D.
    The suspension of duties on this crop protection material will 
result in savings to U.S. growers and ultimately consumers. According 
to a report from the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment 
Program, ``Throughout the past five decades, weed management provided 
by 2,4-D has contributed to the production of billions of tons of crops 
throughout the world, which otherwise would not have been available for 
human consumptiona??2. The herbicide 2,4-D is registered (tolerances 
have been established) for use on over 65 crops in the United States, 
and other phenoxy herbicides are registered on over 25 crops. Also, the 
phenoxy herbicides are registered for numerous noncropland uses.'' The 
report notes that elimination of 2,4-D from the U.S. would result in a 
loss of $2.559 Billion annually, from increased weed management cost, 
decreased crop yields, and ``a net societal loss for consumers because 
of higher retail commodity prices.'' (The report can be found at Error! 
Bookmark not defined..) Thus, the costs of 2,4-D have a direct impact 
on growers and consumers that will be reduced with the suspension of 
duty.
    The domestic industry should not be impacted by suspension of 
duties. Firstly, no significant change in import sourcing will occur 
because of the unavoidable barrier to entry represented by the Task 
Force membership requirements. Furthermore, Nufarm is informed and 
believes that imports from Brazil will be all but eliminated because of 
``trade out'' agreements between its competitors that will divert 
Brazilian production to non-U.S. markets.
    Secondly, if there were any threat to the domestic industry from 
duty free imports, the effects would be evident already from the 
majority of lower priced imports from GSP eligible countries.
    Yet, the only U.S. producer of 2,4-D acid, Dow Agro Services 
(``DAS''), has a well established dominant market share of 
approximately 66%. This dominant market share, moreover, will not be 
reduced any time soon because of the current ``Dow Premier Program.'' 
Under this multi-year program, DAS's current customers are locked into 
significant product discounts for purchase of DAS 2,4-D product at 
levels that maintain or increase its market share; the majority of the 
discount payout occurs only after three years of purchases, and large 
penalties are incurred for leaving the program.
    Moreover, the suspension of duty is consistent with DAS's 
leadership position of strongly supporting worldwide elimination of 
duty on crop protection materials, including 2,4-D. DAS has been an 
influential participant in the Crop Protection Chemicals Coalition, a 
world body comprised of related national associations, e.g. ACPA, 
Avcare, etc. Its ``Zero For Zero'' Initiative for the multilateral 
elimination of duty on crop protection materials has achieved the 
agreement of countries comprising over 85% of world trade. In the 
United States, the USTR has been presented with the proposal, which has 
been through the ISAC and approved.
    Finally, the difference in the low value of GSP imports and the 19% 
higher value of Nufarm imports suggests that suspension of the 9.3% 
duty will merely cause values of the 37% of imports that were duty paid 
to trend towards a value closer to but still above duty free imports. 
Thus, there is no indication of downward pricing pressure on prices 
received by the domestic industry to the extent they are set by low 
value GSP imports.
    The imported 2,4-D affected by HR 3797 is involved in significant 
downstream production activity. Imported acid product is further 
processed into amines and esters, or blended into branded product and 
other active ingredients, or formulated into lesser concentrates of 
amines and esters at numerous general formulators throughout the United 
States. Approximately ten formulators in the United States with over 20 
operation sites, in addition to approximately 2-3 local smaller or 
family owned blenders per state throughout the United States will 
benefit from lower cost and possibly expanded use of duty free product.
    The suspension of duty on 2,4-D will also create significant export 
activity for US producers and formulators. As you are aware, the North 
American agricultural commodity market is a major market for 
agricultural inputs, including crop protection materials. US producers 
and formulators of 2,4-D based products would have more competitive 
access to the significant Canadian and Mexican markets were duty to be 
suspended.
    Presently under NAFTA requirements, when imported product enters 
the United States duty free under bond for formulating or further 
processing (i.e, a TIB under HTS 9813.00.05), any subsequent export to 
a NAFTA country triggers payment of US duty on the base material 
entered under bond as if it were entered for consumption in the United 
States. (19 CFR 181.53(A)(2)(i)). That relatively high 9.3% duty must 
be born in any cost structure of exports to Canada or Mexico, and 
therefore makes US produced product less price competitive. If US duty 
were suspended on imported 2,4-D, US producers and formulators could 
export more competitively a wide variety of blended and formulated 
products in North America without this cost burden

Revenue Loss

    According to Census Bureau Data, duty paid in 1998 totaled $688,601 
and in 1999 totaled $810,531. The increase in 1999 appears to be the 
result of an increase in value (36%) rather than an increase in 
quantity (14%) of dutiable imports.
    Because the current tariff rate is staged and is reduced annually, 
any loss of revenue will be decreased in the coming years. In addition, 
this product is an agricultural input designated for possible 
multilateral duty elimination in the ``Zero for Zero'' initiative 
supported by the United States. Thus, revenues from duties on this 
product may be eliminated through this avenue in the future even if 
duty were not suspended under this bill.
    For the above stated reasons, we strongly support the suspension of 
duty on 2,4-D in H.R. 3797.

            Respectfully submitted,
                                               Roger Unruh,
                                                     Vice President

      

                                


                                     United Agri Products  
                                     Greeley, CO 80632-1286
                                                       May 18, 2000

A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Written comments supporting duty suspension bill H.R. 3797 (2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, it's salts and esters (*2,4-D*)

Dear Mr. Singleton,

    I am writing in support of H.R. 3797 that will relinquish duties on 
(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, it's salts and esters (``2,4-D'')).
    In today's agricultural economy it is mandatory on the producer to 
minimize all input costs. The suspension of duties on 2,4-D will 
enhance not only the producers cost, but will enable our company's 
ability to further utilize our U.S assets through additional exports 
into NAFTA nations (Canada and Mexico).
    The only U.S producer of 2,4-D holds a dominant position in the 
U.S. market and all other producers that import into the U.S enjoy duty 
free status under Generalized System of Preferences.
    We, therefore, desire to express our support in suspension of all 
duties in reference to 2,4-D as a cost savings to the American 
producer.

            Very Truly Yours

                                                 James Sell
                                       Vice President, Distribution
      

                                


H.R. 3801

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Iminodisuccinate.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R.3801

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Iminodisuccinate. 
Bayer's Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehouses in Morrisville, PA, Los Angeles, CA, 
Chicago, IL and Houston, TX as well as Bayer's customers in Burlington, 
NC, Hazlet, NJ, San Diego, CA and Logansport, IN would benefit from 
tariff suspension on Iminodisuccinate via cost reductions for waste 
water treatment and formulations for the textile, agricultural, cleaner 
and detergent industries. Bayer is the sole producer of 
Iminodisuccinate, which is not produced in the United States. Although 
BASF, DOW and Monsanto manufacture products with similar applications, 
Iminodisuccinate is unique in the fact that it is biodegradable and 
therefore an environmentally friendly complexing agent used in laundry 
detergents, dishwashing detergents, industrial and institutional 
cleaners, and chelated micronutrients thus benefiting American industry 
and the environment.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff 
suspension for Iminodisuccinate bill number H.R. 3801. Please do not 
hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the 
event that I am unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office 
(Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location 
(Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                       Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3802

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Iminodisuccinate salts 
and aqueous solutions.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R.3802

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Iminodisuccinate salts 
and aqueous solutions. Bayer's Logistics Division, with major import 
operations at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Bayer warehouses in 
Morrisville, PA, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL and Houston, TX as well 
as Bayer's customers in Burlington, NC, Hazlet, NJ, San Diego, CA and 
Logansport, IN would benefit from tariff suspension on Iminodisuccinate 
salts and aqueous solutions via cost reductions for waste water 
treatment and formulations for the textile, agricultural, cleaner and 
detergent industries. Bayer is the sole producer of Iminodisuccinate 
salts and aqueous solutions, which are not produced in the United 
States. Although BASF, DOW and Monsanto manufacture products with 
similar applications, Iminodisuccinate salts and aqueous solutions are 
unique in the fact that they are biodegradable and therefore 
environmentally friendly complexing agents used in laundry detergents, 
dishwashing detergents, industrial and institutional cleaners, and 
chelated micronutrients thus benefiting American industry and the 
environment.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the proposed tariff 
suspension for Iminodisuccinate salts and aqueous solutions bill number 
H.R. 3802. Please do not hesitate to contact me at Tel: 412-777-2058 
with any questions. In the event that I am unavailable, Julie Van 
Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-3773) or Stephen Johnsen 
at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-5616) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                       Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3803

    To suspend until June 30, 2003, the duty on transformers 
for use in certain radiobroadcast receivers capable of 
receiving signals on AM and FM frequencies.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3804

    To suspend until June 3, 2003, the duty on transformers for 
use in certain radiobroadcast receivers with compact disc 
players and capable of receiving signals on AM and FM 
frequencies.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3805

    To suspend temporarily the duty on polyvinylchloride (PVC) 
self-adhesive sheets.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3808

    To suspend temporarily the duty on BEPD 2-Butyl-2-
ethylpropanediol.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3813

    To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclohexadee-8-en-1-one 
(CHD).

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3818

    To suspend temporarily the duty on octylmethoxycinnamate.
      

                                


                                          Haarmann & Reimer
                                        Teterboro, NJ 07608
                                                       May 11, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 3818

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    This note is being sent to offer comments to the aforementioned 
Bill, which looks to suspend duty on Octyl Methoxy Cinnamate, HTS 
2918.90.30.
    As the U.S. manufacturer, Haarmann & Reimer objects to this 
legislation as it would give an unfair advantage to the importers and 
have the tendency over time to negatively affect our manufacturing 
facility in Goose Creek, South Carolina.
    We respectfully request that this Bill be withdrawn from the 2000 
Trade Tariff Bill.
    We thank you for your attention to this detail.

            Sincerely,

                                          William J. Ludlum
                                                          President

    WJL:ra
    cc:
    Eric Land--U.S. International Trade Commission
    Mike Kelly--U.S. Department of Commerce
    Jim Smith--Smith, Dawson & Andrews
      

                                


                               Barnes, Richardson & Colburn
                                       Washington, DC 20005
                                                       May 19, 2000

A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515.
Re: Comments on Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Proposals; In Support of 
H.R. 3818

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    These comments are submitted on behalf of Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. 
in response to the notice issued April 20, 2000 by the House Committee 
on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, announcing a request for 
written comments on miscellaneous corrections to trade legislation and 
miscellaneous duty suspension bills. Hoffman-LaRoche strongly supports 
H.R. 3818, a bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
octylmethoxycinnamate.
    Hoffman-LaRoche is a manufacturer and marketer of a variety of 
pharmaceutical and health products, including vitamins, 
pharmaceuticals, and cancer-prevention products. Hoffman-LaRoche 
employs approximately 7000 people at its vitamin and pharmaceutical 
sites throughout the United States. Included in the Roche line are 
ultraviolet sun ray filters and dermal protection products, designed to 
help prevent melanomas and ameliorate the skin-damaging effects of 
ultraviolet B (UVB), medium wave-length radiation. One such product is 
sold in the United States as ParsolMCX, a specially 
formulated, patented UVB broad spectrum skin protectant.
    UVB is the most active ultraviolet radiation for producing 
erythema, and it significantly decreases enzymic and non-enzymic 
antioxidants in the skin, thus impairing its ability to protect itself 
against the free radicals generated by exposure to sunlight. UVB is 
responsible for producing skin cancer due to DNA damage, and is 
suspected of affecting the immune system by depleting the Langerhans 
cells in the epidermis, which play an important role in the immunologic 
defense of the skin. Hoffman-LaRoche's Parsol, recently developed and 
approved by FDA, and imported for use in skin care applications, is 
especially effective in preventing infiltration of UVB radiation and 
decreasing the epidermal exposure to medium-length ultraviolet 
radiation. The active ingredient, octyl methoxycinnamate (also known as 
ethylhexyl p-Methoxycinnamate) is imported by Hoffman-LaRoche only from 
its affiliates in Europe, where the only facilities used to synthesize 
the active ingredient are located.
    Octyl methoxycinnamate is imported under Item 2918.90.30 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States, dutiable at a rate of 
6.5% ad valorem. UV radiation protection chemicals in the same family 
of pharmaceutical products, such as avobenzone (which provides broad-
spectrum protection against UVA and UVB radiation), are currently 
eligible for duty-free treatment upon importation pursuant to the 
multilateral pharmaceutical tariff elimination agreement under the 
auspices of the World Trade Organization. However, due to the 
relatively recent development and approval of this product--
ParsolMCX--the precise active ingredient has not yet been 
added to the duty-elimination list, since it has not yet been assigned 
an International Non-proprietary Name (INN) by the World Health 
Organization. When an INN is assigned, octyl methoxycinnamte will 
presumably be accorded like duty-free treatment under the international 
agreement. In the meantime, the current 6.5% tariff is a deterrent to 
the free movement of this unique cancer-fighting chemical, which is 
cannot be made in the United States. Thus, there is no trade-protective 
reason for the tariff, and its only effect is to restrict access to 
consumers.
    Hoffman-LaRoche supports a temporary suspension of the tariff on 
this chemical, pending its inclusion in the zero-for-zero tariff 
agreement on a multilateral and permanent basis. A suspension is 
appropriate in light of the absence of available domestic supply, and 
importance of ParsolMCX in helping to prevent cancers of the 
skin and other illnesses caused by immunological impairment due to UVB 
exposure. Hoffman-LaRoche is aware of no competitive reason to maintain 
the duty, especially since the product will soon become eligible for 
duty free treatment under the WTO arrangement. Suspension of the tariff 
will facilitate trade in this beneficial new product and help control 
costs to U.S. companies and consumers. Furthermore, the company 
estimates that the total tariff revenue effect of this proposed duty 
suspension will be less than $500,000 per year.
    We appreciate the Committee's consideration of these comments, and 
we would be pleased to provide any additional information the Committee 
would find helpful.

            Sincerely

                                         Matthew T. McGrath
                                Counsel to: Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
      

                                


H.R. 3820

    To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 
entries of carbides.
      

                                


                                                       May 15, 2000

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    According to Advisory No. TR-20, which was posted on the web site 
of the Committee on Ways and Means on April 20, 2000, the Subcommittee 
on Trade has solicited comments on a number of bills, including H.R. 
3820, which have been offered for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade 
package. I oppose H.R. 3820, and urge that it not be included in any 
miscellaneous trade bill that the Committee may favorably report out.
    The merchandise that is the subject of this legislation, described 
in H.R. 3820 as ``carbides'' classified under subheading 2849.90.50 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, is otherwise known 
as vanadium carbides, vanadium carbonitrides, and/or nitrided vanadium. 
These products are chiefly used as additives in the manufacture of 
steel. They are interchangeable and compete head-to-head for sales with 
ferrovanadium manufactured by the two remaining U.S. producers of that 
product.
    H.R. 3820 would require the U.S. Customs Service to retroactively 
refund Customs duties that were paid for merchandise that entered the 
United States during a seven month period from July 1998 to January 
1999. The retroactive refunds required by H.R. 3820 would be 
significant, since the ``general'' rate of duty that should have been 
paid for these goods is 3.7 percent of their value. In fact, the 
legislation would create a windfall for a single importing company, to 
the detriment of competing U.S. producers of ferrovanadium. This would 
be unfair and inappropriate.
    Obviously, this bill is not revenue neutral. It would require the 
Treasury to issue substantial refunds to the importer. Consequently, it 
would result in a budget loss that would require an equivalent offset.
    In addition, H.R. 3820 would undermine our country's negotiating 
stance and establish bad precedent. I understand that the importer that 
would benefit from this bill successfully petitioned for a waiver of 
the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) ``competitive need limit,'' 
so that it could import unlimited quantities of this merchandise from 
South Africa free of duty. Presidential Proclamation 7107 of June 30, 
1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 36531 (July 6, 1998)). However, the effective date 
of the provisions granting benefits to carbides and certain other 
products of South Africa was intentionally left to the discretion of 
the U.S. Trade Representative, based on concerns regarding South 
Africa's Medicines Act and its protection of patent rights for 
pharmaceuticals. The law requires that the President consider the GSP's 
eligibility requirements, including a country's protection of 
intellectual property rights, before granting waivers or extending 
other benefits under the program. Once the U.S. Trade Representative 
received adequate assurances as to South Africa's commitment to 
protecting intellectual property rights, these provisions were 
implemented. 64 Fed. Reg. 72138 (December 23, 1999). Hence, the delay 
in implementing preferential tariff treatment for carbides and other 
products from South Africa served a legitimate negotiating purpose. If 
our trading partners and companies that are affected by a trade dispute 
expect that those companies will ultimately be reimbursed retroactively 
for duties or other costs incurred during the negotiation, they will 
have no incentive to seek a speedy resolution.
    Moreover, if Congress authorizes retroactive duty refunds to 
compensate for a legitimate delay in unilaterally implementing a 
preferential tariff rate, then we must anticipate that similarly-
situated importers of other products will step forward to seek 
retroactive refunds, as well.
    For these reasons, I urge that H.R. 3820 be excluded from any 
miscellaneous trade bill that the Committee may favorably report out. 
Thank your for your consideration, and please do not hesitate to call 
me if you have any questions.

            Sincerely,

                                              Robert W. Ney
                                                 Member of Congress

    cc: A.L. Singleton,
    Chief of Staff Committee on Ways and Means
      

                                


                      Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
                                    Newfield, NJ 08344-0768
                                                       May 18, 2000

A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Request for Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills: Opposition to H.R. 3820

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    As President of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, one of two 
remaining U.S. producers of ferrovanadium, I am writing to advise the 
Subcommittee on Trade of Shieldalloy's strong opposition to H.R. 3820, 
a bill offered for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade package. On 
behalf of Shieldalloy and the more than 250 individuals that the 
company employs at its manufacturing facilities in Cambridge, Ohio and 
Newfield, New Jersey, I urge that H.R. 3820 not be included in any 
miscellaneous trade bill that the Committee may favorably report out.
    The merchandise that is the subject of H.R. 3820, described in the 
legislation as ``carbides'' classified under subheading 2849.90.50 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, is otherwise known 
as vanadium carbides, vanadium carbonitrides, and/or nitrided vanadium. 
These products are chiefly used as additives in the manufacture of 
steel. They are interchangeable and compete head-to-head for sales with 
ferrovanadium manufactured in the United States by Shieldalloy.
    H.R. 3820 would require the U.S. Customs Service to retroactively 
refund Customs duties that our competitor paid for merchandise that it 
imported during a seven-month period from July 1998 to January 1999. 
These retroactive refunds would be a significant windfall for our 
competitor, since the ``general'' rate of duty that would have been 
paid for these goods is 3.7 percent of their value. In short, the 
legislation would reward our competitor for importing product, and 
unfairly penalize Shieldalloy for producing ferrovanadium in the United 
States.
    Obviously, H.R. 3820 is not revenue neutral. It would require the 
Treasury to issue substantial refunds to the importer. Consequently, it 
would result in a budget loss that would require an equivalent offset.
    In addition, H.R. 3820 would undermine our country's negotiating 
stance and establish bad precedent. The importer that would benefit 
from this bill successfully petitioned for a waiver of the Generalized 
System of Preferences (GSP) ``competitive need limit,'' so that it 
could import unlimited quantities of this merchandise from South Africa 
free of duty. Presidential Proclamation 7107 of June 30, 1998 (63 Fed. 
Reg. 36531 (July 6, 1998)). However, the effective date of the 
provisions granting benefits to carbides and certain other products of 
South Africa was intentionally left to the discretion of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, based on concerns regarding South Africa's Medicines 
Act and its protection of patent rights for pharmaceuticals. The law 
requires that the President consider the GSP's eligibility 
requirements, including a country's protection of intellectual property 
rights, before granting waivers or extending other benefits under the 
program. Once the U.S. Trade Representative received adequate 
assurances as to South Africa's commitment to protecting intellectual 
property rights, these provisions were implemented. 64 Fed. Reg. 72138 
(December 23, 1999). In other words, the delay in implementing 
preferential tariff treatment for products from South Africa served a 
legitimate negotiating purpose. If our trading partners and companies 
that are affected by a trade dispute expect that those companies will 
ultimately be reimbursed retroactively for duties or other costs 
incurred during the negotiations, they will have no incentive to seek a 
speedy resolution.
    Moreover, if Congress authorizes retroactive duty refunds to 
compensate for this legitimate delay in unilaterally implementing a 
preferential tariff rate, then it must anticipate that similarly 
situated importers of other products will step forward to seek 
retroactive refunds, as well.
    On behalf of Shieldalloy and its employees, I urge the Subcommittee 
to exclude H.R. 3820 from any miscellaneous trade bill that it may 
favorably report out. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any 
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

            Sincerely,

                                            Eric E. Jackson
                                                          President

    cc: The Honorable Bob Ney
    The Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo
      

                                


                                           Stratcor        
                                                Danburg, CT
                                                       May 19, 2000

Hon. Phil Crane
United States House of Representatives
Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In February, representatives of Strategic Minerals Corporation 
(``STRATCOR'') met with Savatri Singh of your staff regarding how we as 
a U.S. Company found itself in the middle of trade fight between the 
United States Trade Representative and the Republic of South Africa. 
Our letter today is to advise you that Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR) 
introduced a Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Bill, HR 3820, which is 
presently before your committee, and which will correct the financial 
impact of the international dispute. These comments support this 
measure to remedy an unprecedented action against an innocent U.S. 
company, a bystander to an unrelated dispute. On behalf of Strategic 
Minerals Corporation and its subsidiaries, this letter requests you to 
include HR 3820 into the omnibus trade bill.

Background:

    On July 1, 1998 the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 
granted U.S. Vanadium Corporation (USV), a Competitive Need Limit (CNL) 
waiver for vanadium carbides produced by Vametco Minerals Corporation, 
a Delaware corporation with manufacturing operations in the Republic of 
South Africa. This waiver was requested by USV in 1997 to allow duty-
free treatment of such imports to continue under the Generalized System 
of Preferences (GSP) program. Without precedent, the USTR's office then 
suspended the effective date of this waiver pending resolution of an 
unrelated dispute regarding pharmaceutical patents. That dispute was 
settled in September 1999.
    U.S. Vanadium and Vametco Minerals are both wholly-owned 
subsidiaries of Strategic Minerals Corporation, a Connecticut 
corporation with vanadium operations in Arkansas, New York, and South 
Africa, plus a new facility being constructed in Louisiana. The company 
also has tungsten interests in California.
    When USTR restored GSP treatment to a number of South African 
products, it did not do so retroactively for the USV's vanadium CNL. 
One of the GSP ``hostages'' to the pharmaceutical debate was the 
effective date for implementing this CNL waiver. The implementation 
delay cost U.S. Vanadium, an innocent company, approximately a million 
dollars to date, and has figured prominently in Strategic Minerals' 
1999 annual loss. Compared to the pharmaceutical industry, Strategic 
Minerals is a tiny company, with fewer than 160 employees in all its 
U.S. operations combined.
    These developments were particularly egregious because the sole 
producer and the sole U.S. importer of these vanadium carbides are both 
wholly-owned subsidiaries of an American company. Neither Vametco 
Minerals, nor U.S. Vanadium, nor any of the products they make or 
import were the subject of the dispute. Clearly, it was inappropriate 
for USTR to use one trade tool (GSP) to achieve another trade objective 
(resolution of the intellectual property dispute) in a manner that only 
hurts an innocent American company. USTR should have made the effective 
date for the CNL waiver for Vanadium Carbides from South Africa the 
date it was originally granted, i.e. July 1, 1998.
    Strategic Minerals unsuccessfully lobbied key USTR officials until 
December 1999 to remedy the situation. However, conversations with USTR 
staff and an understanding of trade law leads us to request your 
support for the private relief bill (HR 3820) to recover approximately 
half the duties paid during the ``implementation delay'' imposed by 
USTR for over two years. We ask that you include this measure with the 
House Ways and Means Committee Omnibus Trade Bill mark-up.
    Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

            Sincerely,

                                           Nicholas A. Pyle
                                          Washington Representative
      

                                


H.R. 3821

    To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 
color television receiver entries to correct an error that was 
made in connection with the original liquidation.
      

                                


Statement of US JVC Corp., Wayne, New Jersey

    This statement is submitted on behalf of US JVC Corp. (JVC) in 
connection with the April 20 request for public comment by the House 
Committee on Ways and Means regarding the package of miscellaneous 
trade bills being prepared by the committee. JVC strongly supports the 
inclusion in this package of legislation which would require the U.S. 
Customs Service to refund the antidumping duties it improperly 
collected on certain JVC entries of color television sets in 1989 and 
1990. This legislation, introduced by Rep. William Pascrell as H.R. 
3821 on March 31, 2000, parallels other bills included in previous 
miscellaneous trade packages to resolve similar disputes in recent 
years, and it should be completely noncontroversial.
    US JVC Corp. is a subsidiary of JVC Americas Corp. Headquartered in 
Wayne, NJ, JVC Americas Corp. has 1,830 U.S. employees. In addition to 
its New Jersey headquarters, the company has U.S. manufacturing 
operations in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Sacramento, California. JVC also 
has sales, service, research and development, and entertainment 
software facilities in California, Illinois, Georgia and Hawaii.
    As noted above, H.R. 3821 would require Customs to refund the 
antidumping duties the agency collected in 1989 and 1990 on certain JVC 
entries subject to Commerce Department antidumping reviews, despite 
instructions from Commerce not to liquidate the entries until the 
reviews were complete. These reviews eventually found that no 
antidumping duties were due on JVC's entries, but Customs refused to 
refund the duties because the deadline for filing protests had passed.
    JVC imported 19 entries of color television receivers from Taiwan 
between June 1989 and November 1990. These TV receivers were the 
subject of an antidumping duty order at the time, and thus JVC 
deposited approximately $130,000 in estimated antidumping duties with 
the U.S. Customs Service when the TV receivers entered the United 
States. After JVC deposited these estimated duties, the Commerce 
Department instructed Customs to suspend liquidation of these entries 
until Commerce published the results of its final determination in the 
administrative reviews of color TV receivers from Taiwan during the 
periods from April 1989 through March 1990 and April 1990 through March 
1991. Customs specifically notified JVC of this suspension of 
liquidation for these entries.
    On January 9, 1992, Commerce directed Customs to continue to 
suspend final assessment of duties on the TV receivers until 
specifically instructed otherwise. However, on February 28, 1992, 
Customs proceeded to assess JVC's entries at the duty rate deposited by 
JVC, and published bulletin notices of the final assessments. Customs 
officials have acknowledged that this liquidation was in error, and 
that it occurred as a result of a misreading by a Customs official of 
the Commerce instructions to continue the suspension of liquidation for 
JVC's entries.
    On May 12, 1992, Commerce released the final results of its 
administrative review of TV receivers from Taiwan. As part of this 
announcement, Commerce determined that no antidumping duties should be 
assessed on the type of receivers imported by JVC during the review 
period. However, several participants in the review challenged the 
results of this review and, because of the ensuing delay, Commerce did 
not instruct Customs to assess JVC's TV receivers with a dumping margin 
of zero until September 27, 1995.
    Following Commerce's final action, JVC requested a refund of the 
antidumping duty deposits it had paid on the receivers. However, 
Customs denied this request and also a subsequent JVC protest of 
Customs' 1992 decision to assess the antidumping duties on the 
television receivers, arguing that the 90-day limit for filing such 
protests had expired. Subsequent court cases brought by JVC challenging 
this Customs decision in the Court of International Trade and the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have been rejected, primarily 
due to precedents established in a similar case involving improperly 
collected duties on concentrated orange juice imported by Juice Farms, 
Inc.
    During the course of this appeal process, these courts suggested 
that JVC should seek a legislative remedy through congressional 
legislation, noting that Juice Farms had succeeded in receiving duty 
refunds through such legislation in 1996. In fact, Juice Farms was one 
of several companies which succeeded in obtaining refunds of duties 
improperly collected by Customs as part of the package of miscellaneous 
trade bills approved by the 104th Congress in 1996 (Public Law 104-
295). Similar duty refund legislation was also passed as part of the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (Public Law 
106-36). Given these precedents, Rep. Pascrell introduced H.R. 3821 on 
behalf of JVC on March 1, 2000.
    In conclusion, JVC strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 3821 in 
the miscellaneous trade package being prepared by the Committee on Ways 
& Means. The enactment of this legislation as part of the miscellaneous 
trade package would allow JVC to finally receive refunds of the duties 
improperly collected by Customs ten years ago. Furthermore, the measure 
is noncontroversial, as evidenced by the inclusion of virtually 
identical provisions to resolve similar situations in previous 
miscellaneous trade packages enacted by Congress.
    Please feel free to contact us should the Committee have any 
questions regarding this matter.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                       Thomas F. St. Maxens
                                               St. Maxens & Company
      

                                


H.R. 3828

    To suspend until January 1, 2003, the duty on a paint 
additive chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3837

    To suspend temporarily the duty on ortho-cumyl-octylphenol 
(OCOP).

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3838

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyamides.
      

                                


                            ELF ATOCHEM North America, Inc.
                                        Arlington, VA 22209
                                                       May 10, 2000

The Honorable A. L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Copy of Statement of Purpose Submitted Upon Request to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission and to U.S. Department of Commerce 
Covering Duty Suspension for Micro-Porous, Ultra-Fine, Spherical Forms 
of Polyamides 6, 12, and 6/12 (HR 3838).

    Dear Mr. Singleton,

    In response to inquiries made by both the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the enclosed document 
was prepared in support of passage of the measure. On behalf of Elf 
Atochem NA, importer of the products designated, I am submitting these 
copies to the Committee for the record.
    Thank you for your attention. Please advise should your office have 
additional questions.

            Regards,
                                         Charles A. Kitchen
                                    Director--Government Releations

                      Product & Market Information

    Note: This information is provided in response to U.S. 
International Trade Commission inquiry.

Micro-Porous, Ultra Fine, Spherical Forms of Polyamides 6, 12 and 6/12 
            Should Be Duty Free Imports (HR 3838 & S. 2240)

CAS Reference Numbers

        Polyamide 6 -CAS # 25038-54-4
        Polyamide 12 -CAS # 25038-74-8
        Polyamide 6/12 -CAS # 25191-04-2
Product Line / Trademark

    The Micro-Porous, Ultra Fine, Spherical Forms of Polyamide 
6, 12, and 6/12 copolymer are sold under Elf Atochem's 
Registered Trademark ORGASOL.

No Domestic Competition

    While there are domestic producers of the ubiquitous 
pelletized or granular form of polyamides 6 and 12 that finds 
application in a long list of high-volume plastic molded or 
extruded products, there are no domestic producers of the 
micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical forms of polyamide 6, 12, 
and 6/12 copolymer material. In fact, Elf Atochem is the only 
global producer the this specialized polyamide line.
    The term polyamide as used in HTS 3908.10. is the chemical 
designation for ``nylon''--the original brand name coined by 
DuPont decades ago. Polyamides 6, 12 and the 6/12 copolymer, 
classified under HTS 3908.10, are subject to a 6.3% duty.
    There are process variations in how polyamides are 
polymerized that produce Polyamides 6, 12 and a 6/12 copolymer 
that, while chemically the same, have distinctly different 
structural characteristics that provide unique features and 
benefits in certain ``niche'' product applications.
    Most polyamides are polymerized by standard methods 
resulting in Polyamides 6, 12 and 6/12 products that are 
pelletized--i.e., granular in structure. However Polyamides 6, 
12 and a 6/12 are polymerized by the solution method (see 
attached ``Fact Sheet'') of production yielding polymer 
material that is a micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical 
polymerized powder that has special and exclusive niches in the 
industrial coatings and cosmetics markets.

                        Production / Importation

        Importer: Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Corporate 
        Headquarters, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Tel: 
        215/419-7000
    ORGASOL micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical form polyamide 
6, 12, 6/12 powder resins are produced at Elf Atochem SA's 
production facility in Mont, France. Material is imported by 
Elf Atochem N.A. for direct sale to end-user market customers. 
No subsequent production processing is required. Imported 
material is warehoused in the following location prior to 
shipment to end-use customers:
        Linden Warehouse Company, Linden NJ (Port of Newark)

   ORGASOL Specialized Polymers Meet Performance Requirements of the 
   Cosmetics Industry and of the High-End Industrial Coatings Market

Cosmetics Market

    Micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical polyamides 6, 12, and 
6/12 copolymer powder forms are used as carriers of pigments 
and to absorb oils in the skin. Personal care/cosmetics 
marketers use our ORGASOL micro-porous powder resins to give 
products such as pressed powder, superior texture and a 
pleasant or soft-to-the-touch feel. There are no domestic 
producers of these unique form of polyamides 6. 12 and 6/12 
copolymer.

High-End Industrial Coatings

    ORGASOL micro-porous, ultra fine, spherical form powder 
resins also are used by manufacturers of industrial coatings, 
paints and varnishes to increase abrasion resistance, texturing 
and gloss control in UV cured coatings -without significantly 
increasing viscosity. There are no domestic producers of these 
micro-porous, ultra fine polyamides that meet the unique 
product features is high-end ``niche'' coatings applications 
that can only be realized with ORGASOL powder resins.
      

                                


H.R. 3853

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Mesamoll.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 5, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Subject: H.R. 3853 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Mesamoll

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Mesamoll. Bayer's 
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehousing in Morrisville, PA and Greenville, 
SC as well as Bayer's customers would benefit from tariff suspension on 
Mesamoll. Mesamoll is very specialized material occupying less than 1% 
of the 1 billion plus pound plasticizer market and is a non-phthalate 
plasticizer for flexible PVC and other polymers.
    Over 400 U.S. customers are served by use of these products as a 
replacement for phthalates in a wide variety of end use applications. 
This product has also proven to be a safe alternative to chlorinated 
solvents such as methylene chloride in the cleaning of polyurethane 
processing equipment. Mesamoll is not produced in the United States and 
is extremely helpful to the automotive industry to assist with high 
performance applications in competing with imported goods. Mesamoll has 
humanitarian applications raging from the manufacture of tents and 
shelters based on PVC coated fabric to medical apparatus. United States 
compounders seeking to reach new performance levels economically will 
reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this product. Bayer AG is 
the only producer of this type of Alkyl Acid Ester of Phenol (Mesamoll) 
with its unique balance of properties and high performance 
characteristics.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for 
Mesamoll, proposed in H.R. 3853. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the event that I am 
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-5616) 
could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                       Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3854

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Vulkalent E/C.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000
Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R. 3854 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkalent 
E/C

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Vulkalent E/C. Bayer's 
Rubber Division, with operations in Akron, OH, import operations in 
Pittsburgh, PA, Bayer warehouses in Greenville, SC and Bayer customers 
in the states of Ohio, California, North Carolina, Texas, Illinois, 
Tennessee, Virginia, New Jersey and Rhode Island would benefit from 
tariff suspension on Vulkalent E/C. Vulkalent E/C is a very uniquely 
balanced retardant for rubber products with high performance 
applications, occupying less than 1% of the $1 billion + rubber market.
    United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels 
will reap technical benefits from duty reduction of this product. 
Vulkalent E/C has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of its 
unique balance of properties and high performance applications. U.S. 
customers are served by use of this product as part of base rubber 
compound recipes in the production of rubber goods, such as automotive 
hoses and shoes, where it is used as a vulkanization retarder. This 
product is not produced in the United States and is extremely 
technically effective and thereby helpful to U.S. industry in competing 
with other imported rubber products in a wide variety of uses.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for 
Vulkalent E/C, proposed in H.R. 3854. Please do not hesitate to contact 
me at Tel: 412-777-2058 with any questions. In the event that I am 
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-5616) 
could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                       Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3855

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Baytron M.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R. 3855 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron M

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Baytron M. Bayer's 
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehousing in Simpsonville and Rock Hill, SC as 
well as Bayer's customers in Simpsonville, SC and Bridgeville, IL would 
benefit from tariff suspension on Baytron M. Baytron M is a patent-
protected, very specialized monomer used for the production of 
electrostatic and antistatic coating of films. The product is an 
environmentally friendly, cost-effective material occupying less than 
1% of the electronics industry.
    United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels 
economically will reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this 
product. Baytron M has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of 
its unique electrostatic and anti-static properties. This product is 
not produced in the United States, and is extremely helpful to the U.S. 
industry in competing with imported goods from the Asian market. There 
are a wide variety of applications of Baytron M from electronics, glass 
and circuit boards to organic light emitting diodes.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for 
Baytron M, proposed in H.R. 3855. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I am 
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Karen Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-
2058) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                         Stephen R. Johnsen
      

                                


H.R. 3856

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Baytron C-R.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R. 3856 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron C-
R
Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Baytron C-R. Bayer's 
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania and a Bayer warehouse and Bayer customers in Simpsonville, 
SC would benefit from tariff suspension on Baytron C-R. Baytron C-R is 
a very specialized aqueous catalytic dispersion material with high 
performance, and environmentally friendly characteristics occupying 
less than 1% of the electronics industry.
    United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels 
economically will reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this 
product. Baytron C-R has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of 
its unique electrostatic and anti-static properties and ability to be 
used even in the fine pores of circuit boards. This product is not 
produced in the United States, and is extremely cost-effective and 
thereby helpful to U.S. industry in competing with imported goods from 
the Asian market. There are a wide variety of applications of Baytron 
C-R from the production of capacitors to printed circuit boards.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for 
Baytron C-R, proposed in H.R. 3856. Please do not hesitate to contact 
me at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I am 
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Karen Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-
2058) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                         Stephen R. Johnsen
      

                                


H.R. 3858

    To suspend temporarily the duty on iced teas.
      

                                


Statement of V. Venkiteswaran, President, Tata Tea, Incorporated, Plant 
City, Florida

    Tata Tea, Incorporated, based in Plant City Florida, 
produces and markets instant tea powders. We have been in 
business for more than 20 years and annual sales amount to 
approximately $16 million.

Bill Summary

    H.R. 3858 is a bill that would eliminate a 10% tariff on 
iced tea drink mixes containing sugar that are imported into 
the United States.

Description of Manufacturing Process

    Instant iced tea drink mixes are composed of sugar, 
powdered tea, flavors and coloring.
    Tata Tea imports powdered tea extracted from tea leaf. The 
tea powder is extracted in India by our parent company. In 
Plant City, Florida, the powdered tea is dissolved in water, 
mixed with caramel color, spray dried and milled to a fine 
powder.
    Our customers are private label companies and some of them 
purchase tea powder as a pre-mix to manufacture instant iced 
tea drink mixes. They export the tea powder to Canada in order 
to add sugar and other ingredients. The finished product is 
then packaged for retail sale and imported into the United 
States.

Tariff Treatment

    Tea leaves and tea powders are generally imported into the 
United States duty free.
    In contrast, iced tea drink mixes containing sugar are 
dutiable and may be subject to tariff rate quotas that exist 
under the U.S. sugar program. The sugar quotas are administered 
by imposing high tariffs on over quota merchandise. Drink mixes 
imported within the quota are dutiable at the lower rate of 10 
percent ad valorem. The tariff that applies to in quota drink 
mixes is unrelated to the sugar quota program. Drink mixes 
imported within the quota may also be imported into the United 
States duty free if they qualify for preferential duty 
treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA).
    Although our tea powder is further processed in the United 
States, it does not qualify for preferential treatment under 
the NAFTA rules of origin. In order to qualify for NAFTA, the 
tea powder must be extracted in North America.
    At present, Tata Tea imports tea powder into the United 
States duty free. However, our customers would have to pay a 
10% tariff if they import the drink mix into the United States.

Effect on the Market

    The existing tariff structure places Tata Tea at a 
competitive disadvantage with producers that extract tea powder 
in the United States. Our customers must pay duties on drink 
mixes that are imported into the United States from Canada. 
However, they pay no duties if the tea powder is purchased from 
a supplier that extracts powder in the United States. This 
occurs despite the fact that all of the major producers extract 
tea powder from foreign tea leaf.
    The situation described above is distorting the market for 
instant tea drink mixes. Producers that rely on tea powder 
extracted abroad have difficulty competing with manufacturers 
that extract tea powder in the United States. This results in 
less competition and fewer choices for the consumer.
    Tata Tea has explored the possibility of establishing an 
extraction facility in the United States in order to qualify 
for NAFTA. This is not feasible primarily due to environmental 
concerns. For the same reason, most of our competitors have 
moved their extraction facilities offshore. In the long-term, 
it may not be viable for any manufacturer to extract tea powder 
in the United States.

Proposed Duty Suspension

    Congress did not intend to shield domestic producers of tea 
powder from foreign competition. This is evident because there 
is no tariff on tea powder imported into the United States. 
Nevertheless, due to the tax on finished iced tea mixes, 
suppliers that extract tea overseas are placed at a competitive 
disadvantage. If enacted, H.R. 3858 would eliminate this 
disparity in tariff treatment by suspending the tariff on 
instant iced tea drink mixes. As a consequence, all producers 
of tea powder will be placed on an equal footing.
    The proposal to suspend duties will have no effect on the 
United States sugar program because it applies only to instant 
iced tea drink mixes that are entered within the sugar quota. 
That is, the rates used to administer the tariff rate quotas on 
sugar will remain unchanged and will apply to all over quota 
merchandise. Consequently, we do not believe that the cane and 
beet sugar industry will lodge an objection to this bill.

Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Subcommittee on 
Trade to include H.R. 3858 in the next miscellaneous trade 
package.
      

                                


H.R. 3868

    To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of 
vacuum cleaners.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3869

    To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 
entries of copper and brass sheet and strip.
      

                                


                                                       May 17, 2000
Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Phil:

    I am responding to your April 20th press advisory in which you 
request written comments regarding a list of trade proposals you are 
considering for inclusion into a Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty 
Suspension package.
    Specifically, I am writing to urge you to incorporate legislation I 
have introduced, H.R. 3869, into the proposal you are crafting. I 
introduced H.R. 3869 on behalf of a company headquartered in my 
district, Outokumpu Copper, Inc. (Outokumpu). Indeed, Outokumpu is 
located just down the road from your district in Bloomingdale, 
Illinois. Technically, the bill would ``provide for the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain identified entries of copper and brass sheet 
and strip.'' In layman's terms, my bill would refund to Outokumpu 
monies owed to it by the federal government as a result of duty 
payments Outokumpu made that were in excess of the final duty it was 
determined to owe. The excess payments come to slightly over $1 million 
in principal and interest.
    Outokumpu imports brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands and 
Sweden. These imports have been subject to antidumping orders since the 
late 1980s. Under Customs procedure, Outokumpu pays (``deposits'') the 
estimated antidumping duties at the time its imports enter the United 
States. A final assessment (``liquidation'') of the actual duty amount 
that should be paid is not made until the Import Administration of the 
Department of Commerce Service completes a review. During the period in 
which deposits are made on the imports, and prior to review, the 
Customs Service is supposed to suspend the liquidation of the entries. 
Notwithstanding the suspension requirement, the Customs Service 
inadvertently liquidated many of Outokumpu's entries at the original 
deposit amount even though many were in excess of the final assessed 
duty. The company should have been refunded the amount of its 
overpayments, which date back to a period of time covering 1988-1992. 
Unfortunately, it was not, a fact which Outokumpu only recently 
discovered. Outokumpu's only recourse to recover the money owed to them 
by the federal government is through enactment of legislation.
    It is my understanding that in the past your Committee has granted 
similar requests with respect to liquidated duties, and I respectfully 
urge you to include H.R. 3869 in your legislative trade package. The 
federal government owes Outokumpu money--money that Outokumpu deposited 
with the federal government in good faith. This money belongs to the 
taxpayer and ought to be returned to the taxpayer with appropriate 
interest.
    Needless to say, I would be happy to provide you with any 
additional information you may require. Thank you for your 
consideration of my request.

            Very truly yours,

                                                 Henry Hyde

    HJH:ns
      

                                


                                      Outokumpu Copper     
                                     Bloomingdale, IL 60108
                                                       May 16, 2000

The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    We are writing in response to your April 20th Advisory requesting 
written comments for the record with regard to a list of trade 
proposals you are considering for inclusion into a Miscellaneous Tariff 
and Duty Suspension package.
    Specifically, as company officers for Outokumpu Copper, Inc. and 
Outokumpu Copper (USA), Inc. (``Outokumpu''), we are writing in strong 
support of H.R. 3869, legislation to ``provide for the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain identified entries of copper and brass sheet 
and strip.'' H.R. 3869, introduced by your Illinois colleague, 
Representative Henry Hyde, will refund to Outokumpu monies owed to it 
by the federal government as a result of the inadvertent liquidation of 
duties by the U.S. Customs Service. The remainder of this letter will 
explain in detail the circumstances surrounding this case and the 
necessity for enactment of H.R. 3869. For your information, Senator 
Dick Durbin has introduced similar legislation, S. 2295, in the Senate.
    Outokumpu is a U.S. importer of brass sheet and strip from the 
Netherlands and Sweden. Headquartered in Bloomingdale, Illinois, our 
company imports these products from Outokumpu Copper Strip BV 
(Netherlands) and Outokumpu Rolled Products AB (Sweden). Imports of 
Outokumpu brass have been subject to antidumping orders since 1987 
(Sweden) and 1988 (Netherlands). Under Customs procedure, Outokumpu 
pays (``deposits'') the estimated antidumpting duties at the time its 
imports enter the United States. A final assessment (``liquidation'') 
of the actual duty amount that should be paid is not made until the 
Import Administration of The Department of Commerce completes a review 
for the applicable 12-month period covering the imports. During the 
period in which deposits are made on the imports, and prior to the 
Import Administration's review, the Customs Service is supposed to 
suspend the liquidation of entries subject to antidumping orders.
    Notwithstanding the suspension order, the Customs Service 
inadvertently liquidated many of Outokumpu's entries at their original 
deposit amount even though many were in excess of the final assessed 
duty. The company should have been refunded the amount of its 
overpayments, which date back to a period of time covering 1988-1992. 
Unfortunately, it was not. Until very recently, the company believed 
that these entries were still unliquidated. Consequently, Outokumpu's 
only recourse to recover these entries, amounting to slightly over $1 
million (in excess duty deposits and interest cost), is through federal 
legislation--namely H.R. 3869.
    We would note that the $1 million figure is a ``net'' figure. The 
net figure is referenced because not only have we provided Customs with 
a list of those liquidated entries where Outokumpu overpaid, but we 
have also provided Customs with a list of liquidated entries where 
Outokumpu actually owes additional duty. In short, we want to set the 
entire record straight. We believe that the Customs evaluation of the 
entry list we have provided will unequivocally support our claim. For 
your information and for the record, in this transmittal we have 
provided you with the same detailed list of entries that we have 
provided to Customs. Finally we would note for the record that, to 
date, Customs has been very cooperative in working with us to evaluate 
the entries in question.
    We stand prepared to provide you and your Subcommittee with any 
additional information you may require to evaluate the merits of this 
legislation. As a matter of principle and as a matter of equity and 
fairness, we strongly believe Outokumpu should be refunded the amount 
of duty it has overpaid along with appropriate interest. It is our 
understanding that in the past your Subcommittee has granted similar 
requests with respect to liquidated duties, and we urge you to include 
H.R. 3869 in your legislative trade package.
    Thank you for your time and for your consideration of our request.

            Sincerely,

    Martin A. Kroll Ulf Anvin
    President President

    Enclosure 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.006
    
      

                                


                                                       May 16, 2000
The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Phil:

    It is my understanding that you have asked for public comment on a 
list of trade proposals you recently listed in a press advisory dated 
April 20th. I am writing to express my support for a proposal contained 
on that list, H.R. 3869, legislation introduced by our colleague, Henry 
Hyde.
    Specifically, I am writing to urge you to incorporate H.R. 3869 
into the Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty Suspension bill you are 
currently crafting. Representative Hyde introduced H.R. 3869 on behalf 
of an Illinois company, Outokumpu Copper, Inc. (Outokumpu), 
headquartered in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Essentially, the bill would 
refund monies owed to Outokumpu by the federal government resulting 
from duty payments Outokumpu made that were in excess of the final duty 
it was determined to owe. The excess payments come to slightly over $1 
million in principal and interest. The only way Outokumpu can recoup 
its money is through federal legislation.
    Outokumpu imports brass sheet and strip, imports that have been 
subject to antidumping orders since the late 1980s. Under Customs 
procedure, Outokumpu pays (``deposits'') the estimated antidumping 
duties at the time its imports enter the United States. A final 
assessment (``liquidation'') of the actual duty amount that should be 
paid is not made until the Import Administration of the Department of 
Commerce Service completes a review. During the period in which 
deposits are made on the imports, and prior to review, the Customs 
Service is supposed to suspend the liquidation of the entries. 
Notwithstanding the suspension order, the Customs Service inadvertently 
liquidated many of Outokumpu's entries at the original deposit amount 
even though many were in excess of the final assessed duty. The company 
should have been refunded the amount of its overpayments, which date 
back to a period of time covering 1988-1992. Unfortunately, it was not, 
a fact that Outokumpu only recently discovered.
    I know your Subcommittee has addressed similar requests in the 
past, and on behalf of the Illinois company in question, I urge you to 
include Chairman Hyde's bill into your Duty Suspension package.
    Thank you for your consideration of my request. Please feel free to 
contact Jeanette Forcash of my staff at (5-3635) with any questions.

            Sincerely,

                                               Jerry Weller
      

                                


H.R. 3875

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain steam or other 
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities
      

                                


                              McDermott International, Inc.
                                              Arlington, VA
                                                       May 19, 2000

A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: HR 3875

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    McDermott International is strongly opposed to the adoption of HR 
3875 which proposes to eliminate tariffs on certain steam or other 
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities and classified 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
Subheading 8402.11.
    McDermott is a leading energy services and manufacturing company, 
providing engineering, procurement, manufacturing of equipment and 
project management for customers involved in the production of energy 
and in other industries. Babcock & Wilcox is a subsidiary of McDermott 
that manufactures power generation systems, including steam or other 
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities. Babcock & Wilcox's 
North American facilities are located in Barberton, Ohio; Cambridge, 
Ontario, Canada; Ebensburg, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Ohio; Alliance, 
Ohio; Melville, Saskatchewan, Canada; Mount Vernon, Indiana; St 
Petersburg, Florida; West Palm Beach, Florida; and West Point, 
Mississippi.
    Suspension of the 5.2 percent duties as expressed in HR 3875, or 
permanent elimination of the duties as expressed in'S 2158, on certain 
steam or other vapor generating boilers that are used in nuclear 
facilities, would result in substantial loss of revenue to the U.S. 
Treasury. In the month of February 2000, imports classified under HTSUS 
Subheading 8402.11 were valued at the amount of $31,058,850. Based on 
information available to the company, we are confident that this value 
reflects the importation from Spain of boilers to be used in a nuclear 
facility. The calculated duty for the month of February, based on the 
current 5.2 percent rate, is $1,615,060. Based on additional 
information received from sources in the trade, we believe that imports 
of boilers for use in nuclear facilities under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11 
for calendar year 2000 will be in the range of $150,000,000, thus 
resulting in potential revenue to the U.S. Treasury of about 
$7,800,000. In addition, we are aware of numerous U.S. orders to 
foreign suppliers for delivery in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Please see 
Enclosure 1 for a listing of these orders. We have also included a list 
of nuclear plants expected to replace their boilers during the 2006-
2010 time-frame (see Enclosure 2). To further document the value of 
these orders, enclosures 3 and 4 are trade press announcements of 
significant orders to Korea's Hanjung for 2 nuclear boilers ($50 
million) and one to Ansaldo of Italy for L 100 billion for 2 nuclear 
boilers (roughly $57 million in 1998). Steam generators are the 
industry term for nuclear boilers.
    Nuclear boiler contracts are often awarded on a supply, remove and 
install basis. The company awards the overall contract and then 
contracts with a nuclear boiler manufacturer for the supply of the 
equipment. The contract price for the overall contract, including 
removal and installation, is often public knowledge. However, the price 
just for the equipment is often not made public. But, there are only a 
few major models of nuclear boilers in the U.S. and by knowing the 
pricing of nuclear boilers at another plant with the same basic model 
of boilers, one can closely approximate the pricing of nuclear boilers 
at a plant where the pricing of the boilers is not publicly known. We 
have used our extensive knowledge of nuclear boiler models at specific 
plants to complete the pricing shown in enclosures 1 and 2.
    Nuclear boilers are critical pieces of equipment in nuclear power 
plants and are designed and manufactured to exacting standards. 
Facilities that manufacture nuclear boilers are required to possess an 
N-stamp qualification. N-stamps are issued by the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers and conform to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
criteria. Qualification for an N-stamp includes a rigorous quality 
assurance program and a very high level of expertise and quality.
    Nuclear boilers are very large pieces of highly engineered 
equipment (a single boiler can weigh up to 500 tons, approach 70 feet 
in length and exceed 20 feet in diameter) that are designed and 
manufactured to extremely tight tolerances (measured in thousandths of 
an inch).
    Babcock & Wilcox maintains the capability to manufacture steam or 
other vapor generating boilers for use in nuclear facilities at our 
plants in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, Mount Vernon, Indiana and 
Barberton, Ohio. We have performed significant nuclear boiler 
manufacturing work in our U.S. facilities (component fabrication, 
component installation, heavy assembly, final inspection and testing). 
There are a number of nuclear plants requiring replacement boilers, 
which will necessitate manufacturing in our U.S. facilities. We conduct 
virtually all of our research and development in the United States. Our 
North American manufacturing requires significant procurement of U.S. 
sourced materials and engineering equipment. We also undertake 
extensive manufacturing of boilers for non-nuclear use in the United 
States. Our ability to manufacture boilers for nuclear use in the 
United States will depend on how future orders develop and the duty of 
HTSUS Subheading 8402.11 remaining at 5.2 %.
    Temporary or permanent duty suspension would have an adverse 
economic impact on US suppliers to Babcock & Wilcox. In 1998, Babcock & 
Wilcox operations in Cambridge, Ontario issued a minimum of US$3.49 
million in purchase orders to US suppliers or their Canadian 
distributors (US$194,000). These purchase orders were issued strictly 
against Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear boiler contracts. The corresponding 
amounts in 1999 were US$ 4.62 million with $1.25 million of this to 
Canadian distributors. The principal suppliers are located in 
California, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. To the best of our 
knowledge, these US suppliers only supply to Babcock & Wilcox in 
respect of our nuclear boiler products. As the duty suspension 
contemplated in HR 3875 would make Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear boilers 
less competitive, then this could have a direct adverse impact on our 
US suppliers.
    While HR 3875 and'S 2158 propose to eliminate the U.S. duty on 
certain products classified under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11, U.S. 
competitors such as the European Union and Korea (a significant 
supplier) both maintain duties on this product--2.7 percent and 8.0 
percent, respectively. The continued existence of duties in the EU and 
Korea coupled with the concomitant elimination of duties on U.S. 
imports would undermine the intent of NAFTA and encourage the migration 
of production from North America to countries outside the region.
    In conclusion, the elimination of the 5.2 percent duty on certain 
boilers classified under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11 would adversely 
affect McDermott International and its subsidiary Babcock & Wilcox and 
preclude it from producing such boilers in the United States. For the 
reasons stated above, McDermott International and Babcock & Wilcox 
oppose HR 3875 (and'S 2158) and request that these comments be given 
formal consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                            Bruce N. Hatton

    Enclosures

    cc: Mr. Grant Aldonas, Chief International Trade Counsel, Senate 
Finance Committee
      Mr. Dennis Fravel, U.S. International Trade Commission
      Ms. Jan Summers, U.S. International Trade Commission 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.010
    
      

                                


                                     PricewaterhouseCoopers
                                  Washington, DC 20005-3333
                                                       May 19, 2000

The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 3875--Legislation to temporarily suspend the duty on steam 
generators imported for use in nuclear power facilities.

Dear Mr. Chairman:
    We are writing in response to your April 20th press advisory in 
which you request written comments for the record on technical 
corrections to U.S. trade law and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. The comments contained in this letter are submitted on 
behalf of the following parties and are in lieu of individual comments 
from each of these organizations.

Nuclear Energy Institute
Alliant Energy Corporation
Northern States Power Company
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation
The Southern Companies
Westinghouse Electric Company
WPS Resources Corporation

    In addition, the seven above-named entities filed the attached 
comments urging repeal of the tariff on steam generators used in 
nuclear power facilities with the International Trade Commission.
    Each of the aforementioned parties strongly support H.R. 3875 and 
urges the House of Representatives to repeal or suspend the tariff on 
steam generators imported for use in nuclear power plants.
    As proponents of H.R. 3875, our comments will highlight the 
following facts.
    (1) No public policy is served by the imposition of the duty on 
nuclear steam generators and there is no apparent public benefit from 
the tariff.
    (2) There is no current domestic production of these specialized 
steam generators and it is highly unlikely that domestic production 
capability will be developed in the foreseeable future.
    (3) The 5.2% duty imposed on these specialized steam generators is 
an unnecessary burden on domestic residential, industrial, and 
commercial users of electricity.
    (4) Repeal or suspension of the duty will have an insignificant 
effect on the federal government's receipts.
    (5) H.R. 3875 has strong bipartisan and bicameral congressional 
support.

No Public Policy Goals are Furthered by the Tariff

    There is no apparent public benefit for the imposition and 
collection of a duty on steam generators imported for use in 
nuclear facilities. Because there is currently no domestic 
production and there is no likelihood of future domestic 
production of nuclear steam generators, there is no policy 
rationale justifying the continued imposition of this duty.
    In fact, the tariff on nuclear steam generators is an 
inefficient tax on domestic electricity consumers. The tariff 
is a hidden ``BTU tax'' on residential, commercial, and 
industrial users of electricity. Because this hidden BTU tax is 
collected as a tariff and passed on to consumers through 
ratemaking proceedings, the tax is masked to the end-users.
    Further, this hidden BTU tax is imposed only on nuclear 
power generation at a time when over 26 States, including 
Illinois, have deregulated the electric industry. The tariff 
imposes a competitive disadvantage on nuclear power. The tariff 
penalizes nuclear power generation, which is the only large-
scale power generation source that produces no smokestack 
emissions.
    As the federal and state governments work to bring 
competition to the electric utility industry and reduce 
greenhouse gases, it is time to remove the tariff on steam 
generators imported for use in nuclear power facilities.

No Current U.S. Production

    Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the 
United States. When nuclear power plants were being constructed 
in the United States, the reactor suppliers manufactured the 
original steam generators. Combustion Engineering manufactured 
generators in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Babcock & Wilcox in 
Barberton, Ohio; and Westinghouse, in Pensacola, Florida. 
Combustion Engineering no longer uses its Chattanooga facility 
for that purpose and has disposed of the manufacturing 
equipment. Babcock & Wilcox, owned by McDermott International, 
moved its manufacturing operation to Canada.
    Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture this 
product in the United States. Its plant in Pensacola, Florida 
was closed after shipping its last order in November 1999. 
Westinghouse found the nuclear steam generator business 
insufficient to sustain the plant and transferred its 
production overseas. The plant equipment has already been sold 
and the plant structure is for sale and will be converted to 
another use.
    Today, only six companies produce nuclear steam generators 
in the world, and all of them are outside the United States: 
Ensa (Spain), Ansaldo (Italy), Babcock & Wilcox (Canada), 
Framatome (France), HANJUNG (Korea) and Mitsubishi (Japan).

Future U.S. Production Unlikely

    The prospect of a nuclear steam generator production 
facility being located in the United States is extremely 
remote. We cannot stress this point strongly enough. Indeed, 
several significant factors suggest that it is highly unlikely 
that such a production capability will be created in the next 
five years or for the foreseeable future:
     The market for nuclear steam generators--The 
universe of nuclear power plants in the United States is 
limited and is not expected to grow. Indeed, the last time a 
nuclear power facility was ordered in the United States was in 
January 1978.
     The expense and time required to select, design, 
and construct a manufacturing facility--The estimated cost of a 
new manufacturing facility is $60 million to $80 million. 
Preferred sites are large (a facility of about 200,000 square 
feet is needed to house production and output prior to 
shipping) and close to water (steam generators, at 500 to 900 
tons, are too large to transport by rail and are transported by 
water).
     The time required for regulatory authorizations--
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires 
manufacturers of nuclear power plant components to be certified 
(the N-Certificate of Authorization) by the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers before a plant may operate in the United 
States. To acquire a new certification takes about one year.
     The time required to produce a nuclear steam 
generator--Even after a manufacturing facility is ready to 
produce, the construction of all component subassemblies and 
final fabrication takes 32 to 48 months in the typical case.
     U.S. competitiveness--By their actions, it is 
clear that the assessment of former U.S. suppliers is that 
production of nuclear steam generators in the United States is 
not competitive with foreign production.
    In addition to these factors, recent decisions by U.S. 
manufacturers provide compelling evidence that there will be no 
future U.S. production of nuclear steam generators. If the 
nuclear steam generator market were viable, an interested party 
could have purchased a licensed, operating facility at the time 
the Westinghouse plant closed. No buyers expressed any interest 
in purchasing the Westinghouse facility for its nuclear steam 
generator production capacity. Westinghouse has dismantled the 
facility and is offering to sell the property for other 
industrial uses.

The Tariff is an Unnecessary Burden on the Consumer

    U.S. production capability has evaporated despite the 
imposition of the duty. The cost of the duty incurred by the 
utility owning a nuclear power facility is simply passed 
directly on to the ratepayer. The ratepayer derives no benefit 
through the payment of this duty. Simply put, the 5.2% duty 
imposed on these steam generators is an unnecessary burden on 
domestic residential, industrial, and commercial users.

H.R. 3875 has Strong Congressional Support

    Representative Mac Collins (GA) introduced H.R. 3875 in the 
House of Representatives to suspend for five years the tariff 
imposed by Section 8402.11 of the 2000 U.S. Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (USHTS) on the importation of steam generators used in 
nuclear power facilities. The legislation was introduced with 
five original cosponsors: Representatives Tanner (TN), J.D. 
Hayworth (AZ), J. Lewis (GA), N. Johnson (CT), and Thurman 
(FL). Following introduction of the legislation, 
Representatives Matsui (CA), Watkins (OK) and Barr (GA) 
cosponsored the bill.
    In the Senate, Senator Frank Murkowski (AK) introduced S. 
2158 to eliminate the duty on the importation of steam 
generators for use in nuclear power facilities. Senator 
Murkowski introduced his legislation with two original 
cosponsors, Senators Grams (MN) and Thompson (TN). Senators 
Coverdell (GA), Kyl (AZ), Mack (FL) and Nickles (OK) have also 
cosponsored the bill.
    The proponents support both H.R. 3875 and S. 2158. While 
the proponents prefer outright repeal of the duty, they will 
support a five-year suspension effective January 1, 2000. A 
lengthy suspension is in order considering how unlikely it is 
that U.S. production might spring up for all the reasons 
stated.
    In short, legislation to suspend or eliminate the duty on 
nuclear steam generators has strong bipartisan and bicameral 
support, particularly from key members of the House Ways and 
Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee.

Revenue Effect

    We estimate that the revenue loss to the federal Treasury 
will be less than $9 million over five years. We arrive at this 
figure by applying the tariff rate of 5.2% to the average price 
of a nuclear steam generator ($12.6 million) and multiplying 
the result by the number of nuclear steam generators (18) 
ordered and expected to be imported between 2000 and 2005.
    Duties paid by U.S. taxpayers are deductible expenses for 
purposes of computing income tax liability. Therefore, 
increased federal revenue derived from duties paid by U.S. 
taxpayers is partially offset by lower income tax payments to 
the federal government. It is our understanding the 
Congressional Budget Office's scoring conventions assume that 
the income tax offset lowers the revenue loss of a duty 
suspension or repeal by 25%. The enclosed letter to ITC 
explains in further detail how we arrived at our revenue 
estimate and includes discussion of the difference between 
replacement cost versus dutiable cost.
    While the $9,000,000.00 ($9 million) revenue loss may be 
more than the revenue loss of the typical duty suspension 
measure your Subcommittee considers, it is insignificant in an 
annual federal budget of $1,800,000,000,000.00 ($1.8 trillion).

Conclusion

    Because there are no domestic manufacturing facilities, the 
tariff neither protects a domestic industry nor promotes the 
development of new domestic capacity. Indeed, despite the 
artificial competitive advantage of the tariff, the last two 
remaining domestic manufacturers abandoned the market. 
McDermott International moved its Babcock & Wilcox steam 
generator production facility to a foreign country. 
Westinghouse, unable to find a purchaser for it steam generator 
production facility, simply surrendered its ASME certification 
required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shut down 
its plant, and is converting the facilities to other uses.
    Other than an insignificant amount of revenue derived from 
this hidden tax, the tariff on nuclear steam generators 
provides no apparent public benefit. Because of the limited 
market for these specialized generators and the many difficult 
barriers to entry into production, it is highly unlikely that 
there will be any domestic production capability in the future.
    H.R. 3875 represents sound trade policy. On behalf of the 
organizations for which we are writing, we strongly urge you to 
include this proposal in the duty suspension legislation that 
the Committee will consider this year.
    If we can provide any additional information, please do not 
hesitate to call us at 202.414.1533.

            Sincerely,

                                       Kirt C. Johnson, and
                                             Patrick J. Raffaniello

Attachment 1--Proponents

The Nuclear Energy Institute is a trade association organized 
    to shape public policy in a manner that ensures the 
    beneficial use of nuclear energy and related technologies 
    in the United States and around the world. Formed in 1953, 
    the Institute today has nearly 300 members engaged in the 
    peaceful use of nuclear technologies.
Alliant Energy is a major energy-services corporation 
    headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. It is a utility 
    holding company employing more than 6000 employees, 
    providing electric, natural gas, water and steam energy to 
    more than 1.3 million customers in service territories in 
    Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. Alliant Energy is 
    putting its energy services expertise to use in developing 
    markets internationally. Roughly 12% of the energy is 
    generates as a utility comes from nuclear sources, and it 
    purchases additional nuclear-generated electricity for its 
    customers on the wholesale market.
Northern States Power Company is an investor-owned utility 
    serving the Upper Mid-West. Headquartered in Minneapolis, 
    Minnesota, NSP serves electricity consumers in Minnesota, 
    Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation (PWEC) is an affiliate of 
    Arizona Public Service Company (APS) which is an investor-
    owned utility serving the Southwest. Headquartered in 
    Phoenix, Arizona, APS is the majority owner and operator of 
    the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that provides 
    electricity to consumers in Arizona, California, Nevada, 
    New Mexico, and Texas. As a result of deregulation in the 
    State of Arizona, APS' ownership interest and operating 
    authority for Palo Verde will be transferred to PWEC.
The Southern Companies is an investor-owned utility serving the 
    Southeast. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, The Southern 
    Companies serves electricity consumers in Alabama, Florida, 
    Georgia, and Mississippi.
Westinghouse Electric Company is engineering and technology 
    company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
WPS Resources Corporation is a holding company headquartered in 
    Green Bay, Wisconsin providing products and services in 
    both regulated and non-regulated energy markets. Through 
    its subsidiaries, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and 
    Upper Peninsula Power Company, WPS serves electric 
    consumers in Michigan and Wisconsin.
      

                                


Mr. Dennis Fravel
International Trade Analyst
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20002

Re: H.R. 3875: Legislation to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
steam and other vapor-generating boiler used in nuclear facilities.

  S. 2158: Legislation to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to eliminate the duty on certain steam or other vapor-
generating boilers used in nuclear facilities.

Dear Mr. Fravel:
    Please accept these comments in support of H.R. 3875 and S. 2158. 
These comments and the enclosed report on the U.S. Market for Nuclear 
Steam Generators are submitted on behalf of several domestic proponents 
of H.R. 3875 and S. 2158. These comments are filed on behalf the 
following organizations and are in lieu of individual comments from 
each organization.

Nuclear Energy Institute
Alliant Energy Corporation
Northern States Power Company
Pinnacle West Energy Corporation
The Southern Companies
Westinghouse Electric Company
WPS Resources Corporation

    A description of each organization is provided as Attachment 1 to 
this letter.
    The proponents strongly urge the Administration to work with 
Congress to repeal the tariff on steam generators imported for use in 
nuclear power facilities. The 5.2% duty imposed by 8402.11 of the 2000 
U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (USHTS) is a burden on domestic 
residential, industrial, and commercial users of electricity. There is 
no current domestic production of these specialized steam generators. 
Further, there is no domestic capability to initiate production of 
nuclear steam generators and no feasible likelihood that domestic 
production capability will be developed.

H.R. 3875

    Representative Collins (GA) introduced H.R. 3875 in the House of 
Representatives to suspend for five years the tariff imposed by 2000 
USHTS 8402.11 on the importation of steam generators for use in nuclear 
power facilities.
    The legislation was introduced with five original cosponsors: 
Representatives Tanner (TN), J.D. Hayworth (AZ), J. Lewis (GA), N. 
Johnson (CT), and Thurman (FL). Following introduction of the bill, 
Representatives Matsui (CA) and Barr (GA) cosponsored the bill.

S. 2158

    Senator Murkowski (AK) introduced S. 2158 to eliminate the duty on 
the importation steam generators for use in nuclear power facilities. 
Senator Murkowski introduced his legislation with two original 
cosponsors, Senators Grams (MN) and Thompson (TN). Senators Coverdell 
(GA), Kyl (AZ), Mack (FL) and Nickles (OK) have also cosponsored the 
bill.

Proponents Prefer Repeal (S. 2158)

    The proponents support both S. 2168 and H.R. 3875. We urge Congress 
and the Administration to repeal the duty. Other than a limited amount 
of revenue derived from this hidden tax, the tariff on nuclear steam 
generators provides no apparent public benefit. Because of the limited 
market for these specialized generators and the many difficult barriers 
to entry into production, it is highly unlikely that there will be any 
domestic production capability in the future.

Locations Where Proponents Will Use the Product

    Of the 104 operational nuclear power plants in the United States in 
1998, 70 have pressurized water reactors. These plants are owned by 34 
different utilities and are located in 27 different States. There are 
committed orders for 30 nuclear steam generators. The following table 
identifies the country of origin, estimated year of delivery, and power 
plant where these steam generators will be installed.

                           Committed Orders For Steam Generators by U.S. Power Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Country of                           Power Plant     Number of Units
          Power Plant Name                Manufacture       Year of Delivery       State           Purchased
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ano 2...............................  Spain                             2000   Arkansas                       2
Farley 1............................  Spain                             2000   Alabama                        3
Kewaunee............................  Italy                             2000   Wisconsin                      2
Shearon Harris......................                                    2000   North                          2
                                                                                Carolina
South Texas Project 1...............  USA                               2000   Texas                          4
Cook 1..............................  Canada                            2001   Michigan                       4
Farley 2............................  Spain                             2001   Alabama                        3
Calvert Cliffs 1....................  Canada                            2002   Maryland                       2
Calvert Cliffs 2....................  Canada                            2003   Maryland                       2
Palo Verde 2........................  Italy                             2002   Arizona                        2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Attachment 2 lists the U.S. plants with pressurized water 
reactors in 1998 and their owners. Attachment 3 depicts their 
locations.

Description of the Product and Its Uses

    Nuclear steam generators are essential components in the 
process of turning nuclear energy into electricity in a 
pressurized water reactor. Water is pumped through the 
reactor's core and is heated by the fission process. This water 
is maintained under pressure to prevent it from boiling and 
turning into steam. The pressurized water is passed through the 
tubing within the nuclear steam generator, a large heat 
exchanger that transfers heat from a primary coolant system 
(tube side) to a secondary coolant system (shell side). The 
primary coolant system contains pressurized water; the 
secondary coolant system contains water that is turned into 
steam by the heat exchanged. The steam drives the power plant 
turbines, creating electricity.
    Attachment 4 shows how nuclear steam generators fit into 
the generation of electricity. Attachment 5 diagrams the 
reactor coolant system arrangement.
    Specialized use: Nuclear steam generators are specialized 
pieces of equipment that weigh 500 to 900 tons each. They are 
used only in pressurized water reactors. They are not used in 
boiling water reactors, non-nuclear power plants, or other 
industrial facilities.
    The design of a nuclear steam generator is unlike the 
design of a fossil fuel steam generator. The equipment required 
to operate the two types of generators is different. The 
material for the tubing in the nuclear steam generator is 
different from the tubing material in a non-nuclear plant. The 
nuclear steam generator tubing must be compatible with the 
unique primary and secondary side water chemistry conditions to 
minimize corrosion degradation. Historically the transfer tubes 
in nuclear steam generators used in the United States were made 
of alloy 600, a nickel/chrome/iron alloy. Newer steam 
generators primarily use alloy 690, which is more resistant to 
corrosion.

Countries of Origin of the Product

    Only six companies produce nuclear steam generators. All of 
them are outside the United States. The companies are listed 
below.
     Ensa (Spain)
     Ansaldo (Italy)
     Babcock & Wilcox (Canada)
     Framatome (France)
     HANJUNG (Korea)
     Mitsubishi (Japan).

Revenue Effect

    We estimate the revenue loss to federal Treasury will be 
less than $9 million over five years. We arrive at this figure 
by applying the tariff rate of 5.2% to the average price of a 
nuclear steam generator ($12.6 million) and multiplying the 
result by the number of committed nuclear steam generators (18) 
ordered and expected to be imported between 2000 and 2005.
    Duties paid by U.S. taxpayers are deductible expenses for 
purposes of computing income tax liability. Therefore, 
increased federal revenue derived from duties paid by U.S. 
taxpayers is partially offset by lower income tax payments to 
the federal government. It is our understanding the 
Congressional Budget Office's scoring conventions assume that 
the income tax offset lowers the revenue loss of a duty 
suspension or repeal by 25%.
    Replacement cost and price: The average replacement cost of 
a nuclear steam generator during 1994-1997 (the latest 
available year of full price data) was $38.4 million. 
Replacement cost includes many costs in addition to the price 
or fabrication cost of the steam generator itself. Replacement 
cost may include licensing, engineering, installation, storage, 
and transport, as well as the price of the steam generator. 
Recently, the price of a nuclear steam generator has been 
approximately 33% of total replacement cost, with some 
variation.
    Tariff to the United States: A buyer may be required to pay 
an import duty to the United States on nuclear steam generators 
that are manufactured abroad. In general, the tariff rate for 
2000 is 5.2%, although imports from certain countries are 
exempt by treaties (including Canada, by virtue of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement).
    Duty is computed by reference to the price of the steam 
generator and not to the replacement cost discussed above 
(which includes substantial, domestically incurred costs such 
as transportation, installation, and engineering). A 5.2% duty 
on the price or fabrication cost of a nuclear steam generator 
($12.67 million, or 33% of average total replacement cost) is 
about $660,000. Of the 30 steam generators under committed 
orders and listed in Attachment 6, all will be imported and, 
excepting eight Canadian-made steam generators, 18 apparently 
will be subject to the 5.2% duty.

No Current U.S. Production of the Product

    Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the 
United States. When nuclear plants were being constructed in 
the United States, the original steam generators were being 
manufactured by the reactor suppliers. Combustion Engineering 
manufactured in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Westinghouse, in 
Pensacola, Florida; and Babcock & Wilcox in Barberton, Ohio. 
Combustion Engineering no longer uses its Chattanooga facility 
for that purpose and has disposed of the manufacturing 
equipment. Babcock & Wilcox moved its manufacturing operation 
to Canada.
    Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture this 
product in the United States. Its plant in Pensacola, Florida 
was closed after shipping its last order in November 1999 to 
the South Texas Project. The plant equipment has already been 
sold and moved, including highly specialized equipment 
purchased by competitors. The plant structure is for sale and 
could be converted to many uses other than its former use.
    The Pensacola plant had been used to make power generation 
and electric generation systems in addition to nuclear steam 
generators. Westinghouse had planned to close the plant when it 
sold its power generation division to Siemens AG and its 
nuclear division to BNFL LTD. Siemens transferred activities 
relating to power generation out of the plant. Westinghouse/
BNFL found the nuclear steam generator business insufficient to 
sustain the plant and transferred its production overseas to 
Ensa.

Future U.S. Production is Unlikely

    U.S. market entry--the delivery of a new nuclear steam 
generator that has been produced in the United States--seems 
highly unlikely during the next five years. There are several 
factors:
     The time required to select, design, and construct 
a manufacturing facility. Preferred sites are large (a facility 
of about 200,000 square feet is needed to house production and 
output prior to shipping) and close to water (steam generators, 
at 500 to 900 tons, are too large to transport by rail and are 
transported by water). The estimated cost of a new 
manufacturing facility is $60 million to $80 million.
     The time required for regulatory authorizations. 
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires 
manufacturers of nuclear power plant components to be certified 
(the N-Certificate of Authorization) by the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers before a plant may operate in the United 
States. To acquire a new certification takes about one year.
     The time required to produce a nuclear steam 
generator. Even after a manufacturing facility is ready to 
produce, the construction of all component subassemblies and 
final fabrication would take 32 to 48 months in the typical 
case.
     The evident assessment of former U.S. suppliers 
that production of nuclear steam generators in the United 
States is not competitive with production elsewhere.
    Attachment 6 illustrates the timetable for the 6-year 
nuclear steam generator replacement project at Unit 2 of the 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station located 60 miles west of 
Phoenix, Arizona.

Conclusion

    The proponents conclude by again urging the Administration 
to recommend that Congress repeal the tariff on nuclear steam 
generators. If we can provide any additional information, 
please do not hesitate to call us.

            Sincerely,

                                 Patrick J. Raffaniello and
                                                    Kirt C. Johnson

Attachment 1--Proponents

    Alliant Energy is a major energy-services corporation headquartered 
in Madison, Wisconsin. It is a utility holding company employing more 
than 6000 employees, providing electric, natural gas, water and steam 
energy to more than 1.3 million customers in service territories in 
Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. Alliant Energy is putting its 
energy services expertise to use in developing markets internationally. 
Roughly 12% of the energy is generates as a utility comes from nuclear 
sources, and it purchases additional nuclear-generated electricity for 
its customers on the wholesale market.
    Northern States Power Company is an investor-owned utility serving 
the Upper Mid-West. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, NSP serves 
electricity consumers in Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and Wisconsin.
    Pinnacle West Energy Corporation (PWEC) is an affiliate of Arizona 
Public Service Company (APS) which is an investor-owned utility serving 
the Southwest. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, APS is the majority 
owner and operator of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station that 
provides electricity to consumers in Arizona, California, Nevada, New 
Mexico, and Texas. As a result of deregulation in the State of Arizona, 
APS' ownership interest and operating authority for Palo Verde will be 
transferred to PWEC.
    The Southern Companies is an investor-owned utility serving the 
Southeast. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, The Southern Companies 
serve electricity consumers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and 
Mississippi.
    Westinghouse Electric Company is engineering and technology company 
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
    WPS Resources Corporation is a holding company headquartered in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin providing products and services in both regulated 
and non-regulated energy markets. Through its subsidiaries, Wisconsin 
Public Service Corporation and Upper Peninsula Power Company, WPS 
serves electric consumers in Michigan and Wisconsin.

        Attachment 2--U.S. Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plants
                                 In 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Utility Owner                Power Plant        Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Power.......................  Farley 1          Alabama
                                      Farley 2          Alabama
Arizona PSC.........................  Palo Verde 1      Arizona
                                      Palo Verde 2      Arizona
                                      Palo Verde 3      Arizona
Baltimore G&E.......................  Calvert Cliffs 1  Maryland
                                      Calvert Cliffs 2  Maryland
Carolina Power......................  Robinson          S. Carolina
                                      Shearon Harris    N. Carolina
Commonwealth Edison.................  Braidwood 1       Illinois
                                      Braidwood 2       Illinois
                                      Byron 1           Illinois
                                      Byron 2           Illinois
Consolidated Edison.................  Indian Point 2    New York
Consumers Energy....................  Palisades         Michigan
Duke Power..........................  Catawba 1         Piedmont
                                      Catawba 2          Carolinas
                                      McGuire 1         Piedmont
                                      McGuire 2          Carolinas
                                      Oconee 1          Piedmont
                                      Oconee 2           Carolinas
                                      Oconee 3          Piedmont
                                                         Carolinas
                                                        S. Carolina
                                                        S. Carolina
                                                        S. Carolina
Duquense............................  Beaver Valley 1   Pennsylvania
                                      Beaver Valley 2   Pennsylvania
Entergy.............................  Ano 2             Arkansas
                                      Ano 1             Arkansas
                                      Waterford 3       Louisiana
Florida P&L.........................  St Lucie 1        Florida
                                      St Lucie 2        Florida
                                      Turkey Point 3    Florida
                                      Turkey Point 4    Florida
Florida Power Corp..................  Crystal River 3   Florida
General Public Utilities............  TMI 1             Pennsylvania
Georgia Power Co....................  Vogtle 1          Georgia
                                      Vogtle 2          Georgia
Houston Light and Power.............  South Texas Proj  Texas
                                       1                Texas
                                      South Texas Proj
                                       2
Indiana Michigan Power Company......  Cook 1            Michigan
                                      Cook 2            Michigan
Maine Yankee AP.....................  Maine Yankee      Maine
New York Power Authority............  Indian Point 3    New York
Northeast Utilities.................  Millstone 2       Connecticut
                                      Millstone 3       Connecticut
Northern States.....................  Prairie Island 1  Minnesota
                                      Prairie Island 2  Minnesota
Omaha PPD...........................  Fort Calhoun      Nebraska
PG&E................................  Diablo Canyon 1   California
                                      Diablo Canyon 2   California
Public Service Electric.............  Salem 1           New Jersey
                                      Salem 2           New Jersey
Public Service of New Hampshire.....  Seabrook          New Hampshire
Rochester G&E.......................  Ginna             New York
South Carolina E&G..................  Summer S.         Carolina
Southern California Edison..........  San Onofre 2      California
                                      San Onofre 3      California
Texas Utilities Electric............  Comanche Peak 1   Texas
                                      Comanche Peak 2   Texas
Toledo Edison.......................  Davis Besse       Ohio
Tennessee Valley Authority..........  Sequoyah 1        Tennessee
                                      Sequoyah 2        Tennessee
                                      Watts Bar 1       Tennessee
Union Electric......................  Callaway          Missouri
Virginia Power......................  North Anna 1      Virginia
                                      North Anna 2      Virginia
                                      Surry 1           Virginia
                                      Surry 2           Virginia
Wisconsin Electric Power............  Point Beach 1     Wisconsin
                                      Point Beach 2     Wisconsin
Wisconsin Public Service............  Kewaunee          Wisconsin
Wolf Creek NOC......................  Wolf Creek        Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.011
                                                        
      

                                


The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:

                                Summary

Product

    Nuclear steam generators are essential components in the 
process of turning nuclear energy into electricity in a 
pressurized water reactor. They enable the transfer of heat 
from pressurized water that has been in the nuclear core to 
water that has not, thus isolating the steam supply to the 
power plant turbines from radioactivity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 2.2-2.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The generators are used only in pressurized water reactors. 
They are not used in boiling water reactors or non-nuclear 
power plants because those other types of plants require steam 
generators that differ in design and materials. Of the 104 
operational nuclear power plants in the United States in 1998, 
70 are pressurized water reactors. These plants are located in 
27 different States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, Appendix B--Plant Design 
Characteristics

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Demand

    Replacement demand.--The market for new nuclear steam 
generators in the United States is circumscribed and static. 
There have been no new orders for nuclear power plants in the 
United States since the late 1970s, and no additions are 
expected in the foreseable future. Therefore, the demand for 
nuclear steam generators is, and will be, confined to replacing 
degraded nuclear steam generators at existing plants. The 
average age of a nuclear steam generator in the United States 
at the time of replacement has been about 15 years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 2-1; 
PwC calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of the 70 U.S. nuclear facilities with pressurized water 
reactors in 1998, 48 facilities (69 percent) still operate with 
their original steam generators and 22 facilities (31 percent) 
have already replaced the generators.\4\ However, 11 of the 
plants that use original nuclear steam generators have 
scheduled replacement of 30 generators during 2000-2003 (each 
plant uses two to four steam generators). These plants are 
located in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland, Michigan, 
North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
    \5\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-2, 
and supplemental information
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Replacement cost and price.--The average replacement cost 
of a nuclear steam generator from 1994 through 1997 was $38.4 
million. Replacement cost includes many costs in addition to 
the price (fabrication cost) of the steam generator itself. As 
reported to EPRI, replacement cost may include licensing, 
engineering, installation, storage, and transport. Recently, 
the price of the steam generator has been approximately 33 
percent of total replacement cost, with some variation above 
and below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ In conversations with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When nuclear steam generators are replaced at a plant, the 
utility usually purchases between two and four steam 
generators, one for each steam generation loop. Thus, the total 
cost of replacing nuclear steam generators averaged between $76 
million and $152 million per plant during 1994-97.\7\ 
Replacement cost has increased very little in nominal dollars 
through the years, with some ups and downs in between.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The buyer may be required to pay an import duty to the 
United States on generators that are manufactured abroad. The 
applicable year 2000 Harmonized Tariff Organization schedule 
subheading for nuclear replacement steam generators is 
8402.11.00, with an associated duty rate of 5.2 percent. 
Imports from Canada are exempt from this tariff under the North 
American Free Trade Agreement.\8\ It appears that 18 of the 30 
nuclear steam generators that are scheduled for replacement 
during 2000-2003 will be dutiable and that the other eight will 
come from Canada.\9\ Duty is computed by reference to the price 
of the steam generator and not to the replacement cost 
discussed above (which includes substantial, domestically 
incurred costs such as installation and engineering). A 5.2-
percent duty on the price of a nuclear steam generator ($12.67 
million, or 33 percent of average total replacement cost) is 
about $660,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code Schedule, Chapter 84, Year 2000 
revision
    \9\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-2; 
In conversation with industry experts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Supply

    No current U.S. production--Six companies are currently 
producing nuclear steam generators outside the United States. 
They are Ensa (Spain), Ansaldo (Italy), Babcock and Wilcox 
(Canada), Framatome (France), Korea Heavy Industries & 
Construction Company (HANJUNG) (Korea), and Mitsubishi 
(Japan).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the 
United States. Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture 
this product in the United States. Upon closing its plant in 
Pensacola, Florida after shipping its last order in November 
1999, Westinghouse surrendered its American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers certification which the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission requires of manufacturers of nuclear steam 
generators. The plant equipment has already been sold and the 
plant structure is for sale.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. market entry highly unlikely in next five years--
Production and delivery of nuclear steam generators made in the 
United States is highly unlikely for at least the next five 
years.\12\ In addition to the evident conclusion of former U.S. 
suppliers that production overseas is more competitive and the 
limited economic incentives for expanding production in a 
country where domestic demand is confined to replacing the 
existing stock of generators, there are time factors to 
consider as well. They include time to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Select, design, and construct a manufacturing 
facility. Preferred sites are large, close to water, and cost 
between $60 million and $80 million to construct.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ In conversation with government experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Obtain necessary authorizations. For example, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires manufacturers of nuclear 
power plant components to be certified by the American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Produce a generator. If a new nuclear steam 
generator were ordered today, it would take, in the typical 
case, about 32 to 48 months to complete.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 2.1-2.4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About This Report

    This report was prepared by the National Economic 
Consulting group of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Information for the 
report was obtained from publications of the Electric Power 
Research Institute (EPRI), discussions with government and 
industry experts, and other sources, as recorded in footnotes. 
Exhibits that elaborate or depict certain points made in the 
report are collected at the back, beginning at page 12.

The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:

                                Product

Function

    Nuclear steam generators are essential components in the 
process of turning nuclear energy into electricity in a 
pressurized water reactor. Water is pumped through the 
reactor's core and is heated by the fission process. This water 
is maintained under pressure to prevent it from boiling and 
turning into steam. The pressurized water is passed through the 
tubing within the nuclear steam generator, a large heat 
exchanger that transfers heat from a primary coolant system 
(tube side) to a secondary coolant system (shell side). The 
primary coolant system contains pressurized water; the 
secondary coolant system contains water that is turned into 
steam by the heat exchanged. The steam powers the power plant 
turbines, creating electricity.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exhibit 1 shows how nuclear steam generators fit into the 
generation of electricity.
    Exhibit 2 diagrams the reactor coolant system arrangement.

Used Only in Pressurized Water Reactors

    Specialized use.--Nuclear steam generators are specialized 
pieces of equipment that weigh 500 to 900 tons each.\17\ They 
are used only in pressurized water reactors. They are not used 
in boiling water reactors, non-nuclear power plants, or other 
industrial facilities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ In conversation with industry experts
    \18\ In conversation with industry experts; EPRI Steam Generator 
Reference Book, pages 2.3-2.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The design of a nuclear steam generator is unlike the 
design of a fossil fuel steam generator. The equipment required 
to operate the two types of generators is different. The 
material for the tubing in the nuclear steam generator is 
different from the tubing material in a non-nuclear plant. The 
nuclear steam generator tubing must be compatible with the 
unique primary and secondary side water chemistry conditions to 
minimize corrosion degradation. Historically the transfer tubes 
in nuclear steam generators used in the United States were made 
of alloy 600, a nickel/chrome/iron alloy. Newer steam 
generators primarily use alloy 690, which is more resistant to 
corrosion.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 2.4-2.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number in use--Of the 104 operational nuclear power plants 
in the United States in 1998, 70 have pressurized water 
reactors. These plants are owned by 34 different utilities and 
are located in 27 different States.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, Appendix B--Plant Design 
Characteristics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exhibit 3 lists the U.S. plants with pressurized water 
reactors in 1998 and their owners.
    Exhibit 4 depicts their locations.

The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:

                             Market Demand

Replacement Demand

    No demand from new power plant construction--No new nuclear 
power plants are currently planned for construction in the 
United States.\21\ However, existing plants will eventually 
replace their deteriorating nuclear steam generators.\22\ Thus, 
the market for nuclear steam generators in the United States is 
limited to replacements at existing plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ EIA, 1996 Nuclear Capacity Status and Projections, DOE 
Document
    \22\ EPRI Steam Generator Reference Book, pages 1.6-1.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Repairs--The tubes in a nuclear steam generator 
(approximately 4,000 to 12,000, depending on size \23\) are 
susceptible to denting, fatigue, wall thinning, corrosion, and 
other degradation mechanisms requiring repair. A sleeve can be 
inserted into the tube and welded to bridge the problem area, 
allowing continued use of the tube.\24\ Alternatively, the tube 
can be plugged with a corrosion resistant alloy, effectively 
removing it from service.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ In conversation with industry experts
    \24\ Lockyer Elizabeth M., ``Laser Welding Technology to Put 
Kewaunee River Plant Back on Line,'' Technology News, December 1996.
    \25\ NEI, Long Term Nuclear Power Maintenance, September 1999 
Revision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Replacement--As more tubes are plugged or sleeved 
performance is diminished and it may become necessary to 
replace the steam generator with a new, more corrosion 
resistant one. The average age of a nuclear steam generator in 
the United States at the time of replacement has been 14.6 
years.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 2-1, 
PwC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of the 70 operational nuclear facilities in the United 
States in 1998 with pressurized water reactors, 22 (or 31 
percent) have replaced their original generators. The 
replacements are concentrated in the older plants. Nearly half 
of the plants that are now 21 years or older have replaced 
their nuclear steam generators, while none that are now 10 
years or younger have replaced them.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The majority of pressurized water reactors (69 percent) 
still operate with their original nuclear steam generators.\28\ 
However, 11 of that group have scheduled replacement of 30 
generators during 2000-2003.\29\ Each plant uses two to four 
steam generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
    \29\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-2, 
and conversations with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exhibit 5 gives a frequency distribution of replacements of 
nuclear steam generators, keyed to the age of the nuclear 
facility.
    Exhibit 6 lists the committed orders for steam generators 
by U.S. power plants and includes the country of manufacture, 
year of delivery, power plant site, and number of steam 
generators.

Price

    Replacement cost and price.--The average replacement cost 
of a nuclear steam generator during 1994-1997 (the latest year 
of full price data, as collected by Electric Power Research 
Institute) was $38.4 million. Replacement cost includes many 
costs in addition to the price or fabrication cost of the steam 
generator itself. As reported to EPRI, replacement cost may 
include licensing, engineering, installation, storage, and 
transport, as well as the price of the steam generator. 
Recently, the price of a nuclear steam generator has been 
approximately 33 percent of total replacement cost, with some 
variation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The average replacement cost of a nuclear steam generator 
has increased only slightly in nominal value between 1980 
($31.3 million) and 1997 ($35.5 million), with some larger ups 
and downs in between. Data for part of 1998 suggest that the 
1998 average nominal replacement cost might be above the trend 
line.\31\ As prices for capital equipment have generally 
increased by more than 60 percent since 1980, the replacement 
cost of nuclear steam generators in 1980 dollars has declined 
greatly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 9-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exhibit 7 charts average replacement cost of one nuclear 
steam generator, in current dollars, from 1980 through 1997.
    Tariff to United States--A buyer may be required to pay an 
import duty to the United States on nuclear steam generators 
that are manufactured abroad. In general, the tariff rate for 
2000 is 5.2 percent, although imports from certain countries 
are exempt by treaties (including Canada, by virtue of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code Schedule, Chapter 84, Year 2000 
revision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Duty is computed by reference to the price of the steam 
generator and not to the replacement cost discussed above 
(which includes substantial, domestically incurred costs such 
as installation and engineering). A 5.2-percent duty on the 
price or fabrication cost of a nuclear steam generator ($12.67 
million, or 33 percent of average total replacement cost) is 
about $660,000. Of the 30 steam generators under committed 
orders and listed in Exhibit 6, all but 4 will be imported and, 
excepting eight Canadian-made steam generators, 18 apparently 
will be subject to the 5.2-percent duty.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ In conversation with industry experts; EPRI Steam Generator 
Progress Report, Revision 14 Table 9-2; U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code 
Schedule, Chapter 84, Year 2000 revision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fee to designer--Each pressurized water reactor power plant 
has steam generators that were designed specifically for it. 
When a utility decides to replace the nuclear steam generators, 
the replacements must match the original design 
specifications.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The designs used at the 70 pressurized water reactor power 
plants in the United States belong to three companies: 
Westinghouse, ABB Combustion Engineering, and Babcock & 
Wilcox.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, Table 2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because a manufacturer has licenses only for certain 
designs, a customer may have to pay a design royalty fee. For 
example, the Ansaldo plant in Italy is licensed to build ABB CE 
System 80 model steam generators but not Babcock & Wilcox 
models.\36\ A utility buying a Babcock & Wilcox model may have 
to pay a design royalty to Babcock & Wilcox for construction to 
occur at Ansaldo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Market for Nuclear Steam Generators:

                             Market Supply

Overview of Production

    A nuclear steam generator has over 18 subassemblies that 
need to be planned, specified, and built according to 
certification standards of the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME). Paperwork documenting that the material 
usage, design plans, and construction facilities meet AMSE 
certification must be filed before construction begins.\37\ The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission also requires specific quality 
assurance standards that are unique to the nuclear industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Assembly at a nuclear steam generator production plant can 
occur at the rate of four to six items per year. However, the 
actual rate of output can be as low as two items per year due 
to backlogs in acquiring components. For example, alloy 690 
tubing, a key component in a nuclear steam generator, is 
produced in only three locations worldwide--Sumitomo (Japan), 
Valinox (France), and Sandvik (Sweden)--and lead times may be 
as much as eighteen months. Or again, integrally forged primary 
channel head lead times may be in excess of 12 months.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accounting for all factors, the typical turnaround time 
from ordering a nuclear steam generator to delivering it is 
about 32 to 48 months.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ In conversation with industry experts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Suppliers

    Six companies produce nuclear steam generators outside the 
United States. They are \40\--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ensa (Spain)
     Ansaldo (Italy)
     Babcock & Wilcox (Canada)
     Framatome (France)
     HANJUNG (Korea)
     Mitsubishi (Japan).
    In some cases, international consortia own these companies. 
For example, Ensa is jointly owned by Westinghouse/BNFL and 
Equipe Nucleares S.A.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Westinghouse Electric Company, ``Steam Generators Shipped to 
Quinshan II Nuclear Station,'' Press Release of 3/24/99

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Current U.S. Production

    Nuclear steam generators are no longer manufactured in the 
United States.\42\ When nuclear plants were being constructed 
in the United States, the original steam generators were being 
manufactured by the reactor suppliers. Combustion Engineering 
manufactured in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Westinghouse, in 
Pensacola, Florida; and Babcock & Wilcox in Barberton, Ohio. 
Combustion Engineering no longer uses its Chattanooga facility 
for that purpose and has disposed of the manufacturing 
equipment. Babcock & Wilcox moved its manufacturing operation 
to Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Westinghouse was the last company to manufacture this 
product in the United States.\43\ Its plant in Pensacola, 
Florida was closed after shipping its last order in November 
1999 to the South Texas Project. The plant equipment has 
already been sold and moved, including highly specialized 
equipment purchased by competitors. The plant structure is for 
sale and could be converted to many uses other than its former 
use.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ In conversation with industry experts
    \44\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Pensacola plant had been used to make power generation 
and electric generation systems in addition to nuclear steam 
generators. Westinghouse had planned to close the plant when it 
sold its power generation division to Siemens AG and its 
nuclear division to BNFL LTD. Siemens transferred activities 
relating to power generation out of the plant. Westinghouse/
BNFL found the nuclear steam generator business insufficient to 
sustain the plant and transferred its production overseas to 
Ensa.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ In conversation with industry experts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Market Entry Highly Unlikely

    U.S. market entry--the delivery of a new nuclear steam 
generator that has been produced in the United States--seems 
highly unlikely during the next five years. There are several 
factors:
     The time required to select, design, and construct 
a manufacturing facility. Preferred sites are large (a facility 
of about 200,000 square feet is needed to house production and 
output prior to shipping) and close to water (steam generators, 
at 500 to 900 tons, are too large to transport by rail and are 
transported by water). The estimated cost of a new 
manufacturing facility is $60 million to $80 million.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The time required for regulatory authorizations. 
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires 
manufacturers of nuclear power plant components to be certified 
(the N-Certificate of Authorization) by the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers before a plant may operate in the United 
States.\47\ To acquire a new certification takes about one 
year.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ In conversation with government experts
    \48\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The time required to produce a nuclear steam 
generator. Even after a manufacturing facility is ready to 
produce, the construction of all component subassemblies and 
final fabrication would take 32 to 48 months in the typical 
case.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The evident assessment of former U.S. suppliers 
that production of nuclear steam generators in the United 
States is not competitive with production elsewhere.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ In conversation with industry experts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Exhibit 8 illustrates the timetable for the 6-year nuclear 
steam generator replacement project at Unit 2 of the Palo Verde 
Nuclear Generating Station located 60 miles west of Phoenix, 
Arizona.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.013


         Exhibit 3--U.S. Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plants
                                 In 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Utility Owner                Power Plant        Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Power.......................  Farley 1          Alabama
                                      Farley 2          Alabama
Arizona PSC.........................  Palo Verde 1      Arizona
                                      Palo Verde 2      Arizona
                                      Palo Verde 3      Arizona
Baltimore G&E.......................  Calvert Cliffs 1  Maryland
                                      Calvert Cliffs 2  Maryland
Carolina Power......................  Robinson          S. Carolina
                                      Shearon Harris    N. Carolina
Commonwealth Edison.................  Braidwood 1       Illinois
                                      Braidwood 2       Illinois
                                      Byron 1           Illinois
                                      Byron 2           Illinois
Consolidated Edison.................  Indian Point 2    New York
Consumers Energy....................  Palisades         Michigan
Duke Power..........................  Catawba 1         Piedmont
                                      Catawba 2          Carolinas
                                      McGuire 1         Piedmont
                                      McGuire 2          Carolinas
                                      Pconee 1          Piedmont
                                      Oconee 2           Carolinas
                                      Oconee 3          Piedmont
                                                         Carolinas
                                                        S. Carolina
                                                        S. Carolina
                                                        S. Carolina
Duquense............................  Beaver Valley 1   Pennsylvania
                                      Beaver Valley 2   Pennsylvania
Entergy.............................  Ano 2             Arkansas
                                      Ano 1             Arkansas
                                      Waterford 3       Louisiana
Florida P&L.........................  St Lucie 1        Florida
                                      St Lucie 2        Florida
                                      Turkey Point 3    Florida
                                      Turkey Point 4    Florida
Florida Power Corp                    Crystal River 3   Florida
General Public Utilities............  TMI 1             Pennsylvania
Georgia Power Co....................  Vogtle 1          Georgia
                                      Vogtle 2          Georgia
Houston Light and Power.............  South Texas Proj  Texas
                                       1                Texas
                                      South Texas Proj
                                       2
Indiana Michigan Power Company......  Cook 1            Michigan
                                      Cook 2            Michigan
Maine Yankee AP.....................  Maine Yankee      Maine
New York Power Authority............  Indian Point 3    New York
Northeast Utilities.................  Millstone 2       Connecticut
                                      Millstone 3       Connecticut
Northern States.....................  Prairie Island 1  Minnesota
                                      Prairie Island 2  Minnesota
Omaha PPD...........................  Fort Calhoun      Nebraska
PG&E................................  Diablo Canyon 1   California
                                      Diablo Canyon 2   California
Public Service Electric.............  Salem 1           New Jersey
                                      Salem 2           New Jersey
Public Service of New Hampshire.....  Seabrook          New Hampshire
Rochester G&E.......................  Ginna             New York
South Carolina E&G..................  Summer            S. Carolina
Southern California Edison..........  San Onofre 2      California
                                      San Onofre 3      California
Texas Utilities Electric............  Comanche Peak 1   Texas
                                      Comanche Peak 2   Texas
Toledo Edison.......................  Davis Besse       Ohio
Tennessee Valley Authority..........  Sequoyah 1        Tennessee
                                      Sequoyah 2        Tennessee
                                      Watts Bar 1       Tennessee
Union Electric......................  Callaway          Missouri
Virginia Power......................  North Anna 1      Virginia
                                      North Anna 2      Virginia
                                      Surry 1           Virginia
                                      Surry 2           Virginia
Wisconsin Electric Power............  Point Beach 1     Wisconsin
                                      Point Beach 2     Wisconsin
Wisconsin Public Service............  Kewaunee          Wisconsin
Wolf Creek NOC......................  Wolf Creek        Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AAAAAAAAAASource: EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report Table 2-1; EPRI
  Steam Generator Reference Book, Appendix B--Plant Design
  Characteristics

    Note: Maine Yankee has since shut down. 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.014
    

                               Exhibit 5--Replacement of Nuclear Steam Generators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of Plants with Replaced         Percentage with
     Age Category         Number of Power Plants            Steam Generators                 Replacements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-                                          1                                 0                         0.0
6 to 10                                     3                                 0                         0.0
11 to 15                                   21                                 3                        14.3
16-20                                      12                                 4                        33.3
21-25                                      13                                 6                        46.2
26+                                        20                                 9                        45.0
Total                                      70                                22                        31.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AAAASource: EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Tables 2-1 and 9-1


                      Exhibit 6--Committed Orders For Steam Generators by U.S. Power Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Number of
      Power Plant Name        Country of Manufacture  Year of Delivery     Power Plant State       Generators
                                                                                                    Purchased
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ano 2                                       Spain              2000                Arkansas                 2
Farley 1                                    Spain              2000                 Alabama                 3
Kewaunee                                    Italy              2000               Wisconsin
Shearon Harris                                                 2000          North Carolina                 2
South Texas Project                           USA              2000                   Texas                 4
Cook 1                                     Canada              2001                Michigan                 4
Farley 2                                    Spain              2001                 Alabama                 3
Sequoyah 1                            South Korea              2002               Tennessee                 4
Palo Verde 2                                Italy              2002                 Arizona                 2
Calvert Cliffs 1                           Canada              2002                Maryland                 2
Calvert Cliffs 2                           Canada              2002                Maryland                 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AAAASource: EPRI, Steam Generator Progress Report, Revision 14, and conversations with industry experts

Exhibit 7--Average Replacement Cost of a Nuclear Steam Generator
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.015

    Note: Replacement cost includes the price of a steam 
generator (about 33 percent of replacement cost) plus 
installation costs, engineering, licensing, and other costs 
related to replacement.
    Source: EPRI Steam Generator Progress Report, Table 9-1.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6010.016
    
      

                                


H.R. 3876

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron P.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R. 3876 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baytron P

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in health care and life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 
sales of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout 
the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
Bayer Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 
billion international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals 
group based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Baytron P. Bayer's 
Logistics Division, with major import operations at Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania and Bayer warehousing in Calumet City, IL as well as 
Bayer's customers in Janesville, WI, Corpus Christi, TX, Chicago, IL, 
and Tampa, FL would benefit from tariff suspension on Baytron P. 
Baytron P is a very specialized aqueous dispersion of an 
environmentally friendly, conductive polymeric material occupying less 
than 1% of the electronics industry.
    United States compounders seeking to reach new performance levels 
economically will reap economic benefits from duty reduction of this 
product. Baytron P has an advantage for the U.S. industry because of 
its unique electrostatic and anti-static properties. This product is 
not produced in the United States, and is extremely helpful to the U.S. 
industry in competing with imported goods from the Asian market. There 
are a wide variety of applications of Baytron P from coating glass to 
organic light emitting diodes.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for 
Baytron P, proposed in H.R. 3876. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
at Tel: 412-777-5616 with any questions. In the event that I am 
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Tel.: 202-756-
3773) or Karen L. Niedermeyer at our Pittsburgh location (Tel: 412-777-
2058) could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                         Stephen R. Johnsen
      

                                


H.R. 3877

    To suspend temporarily the duty on dimethyl dicarbonate.
      

                                


                                  Bayer Corporation, U.S.A.
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9741
                                                        May 1, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Subject: H.R. 3877 A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl 
Dicarbonate (DMDC)

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    Bayer Corporation is a research-based company with major businesses 
in healthcare, life sciences and chemicals. The company had 1999 sales 
of $8.9 billion and employs more than 22,200 people throughout the 
United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Bayer 
Corporation is a member of the worldwide Bayer Group, a $29 billion 
international life sciences, polymers and specialty chemicals group 
based in Leverkusen with 120,400 employees worldwide.
    Bayer Corporation is a regular importer of Dimethyl Dicarbonate 
(DMDC). Bayer's Industrial Chemicals Division, with major import 
operations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Bayer customers in Petaluma, 
California would benefit from tariff suspension on DMDC. After 
sufficient market growth, construction of a manufacturing unit in the 
United States is anticipated and depends on sufficient U.S. market 
growth. Duty reduction in the U.S. will also greatly assist U.S. 
manufacturers in becoming more innovative and more competitive in 
certain parts of the beverage industry.
    Dimethyl Dicarbonate (DMDC) is an FDA regulated secondary food 
additive used as a cold beverage sterilant highly effective in low 
dosages against a variety of yeast, some mold fungi and bacteria in 
alcoholic wine, low alcohol and dealcoholized wines, ready-to-drink 
tea, sport drinks and juice sparklers. A food additive petition is 
underway with the FDA for registration of non-carbonated juice 
beverages containing up to and including 100% juice. This will enable 
the industry to address spoilage of juices due to yeast contamination 
and is also effective against E. coli that has had known occurrences 
within the market segment. This product is not produced in the United 
States, and is extremely helpful to the beverage industry because it is 
non-persistent. It does not affect the taste, bouquet or color of the 
beverage. DMDC even provides the user with the option to reduce or in 
some cases, even eliminate the need for chemical preservatives. It has 
been shown to control human pathogens like E.coli H0157, a common food 
spoiling bacteria. Bayer AG is the only producer of this type of DMDC 
(Velcorin) with this unique balance of properties. It is highly 
desirable in the U.S. to avoid excessive filtration in the 
manufacturing process that negatively impacts the taste of wine. The 
fact that DMDC even provides the user with the option to reduce or in 
some cases, even eliminate the need for chemical preservatives and also 
eliminate important human pathogens will, in the future, allow for use 
in other beverages like fruit juices and soft drinks to prevent 
spoilage.
    We hope this supplemental information is useful in the House Ways 
and Means Committee deliberations regarding the tariff suspension for 
Dimethyl Dicarbonate, proposed in H.R. 3877. Please do not hesitate to 
contact me at 412/777-2058 with any questions. In the event that I am 
unavailable, Julie Van Egmond in our Washington office (Ph. 202-756-
3773) or Stephen Johnsen at our Pittsburgh location (Ph. 412/777-5616) 
could be of assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                       Karen L. Niedermeyer
      

                                


H.R. 3930

    To suspend temporarily the duty on KN001 (a hydrochloride).

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3931

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Methyl thioglycolate.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3932

    To suspend temporarily the duty on KL540.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3933

    To suspend temporarily the duty on DPC 083.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3934

    To suspend temporarily the duty on DPC 961.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3935

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Magenta 364 
Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3936

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Black 263 Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3937

    To supend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 184.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739

      

                                


H.R. 3938

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Yellow 1 Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3939

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Orange 73.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739

      

                                


H.R. 3940

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Direct Black 19 Press 
Paste.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3941

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Black HSAQ 
Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3942

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Black 286 
Paste.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3943

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Yellow 1G Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3944

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 255.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739

      

                                


H.R. 3945

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Cyan 1 Press 
Paste.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3946

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Black Alc 
Powder.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3947

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent Yellow 163.
      

                                


                                            Hogan & Hartson
                                 Washington, DC 200004-1109
                                                       May 22, 2000

A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
House Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 205155-6354

Re: Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bill -Opposition to the Adoption of H.R. 3947

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of ColorChem International Corp. (``ColorChem''), we 
hereby request that the Committee decline to adopt H.R. 3947. For the 
reasons articulated below, adopting H.R. 3947 would severely and 
adversely impact ColorChem, the only remaining U.S. producer of Solvent 
Yellow 163.
    As illustrated in the Colour Index International, a listing of 
chemical producers published by the Society of Dyers and Colourists in 
conjunction with the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists (``AATCC''), ColorChem is the sole remaining U.S. producer of 
Solvent Yellow 163.\1\ Solvent yellow 163 is a dyestuff that is used to 
color engineering plastics, such as ABS, polycarbonate and acrylic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See also the Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, published by McGraw 
Hill as a supplement to Modern Plastics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 1997 ColorChem has become increasingly concerned that import 
surges soon would overwhelm one of the few remaining U.S. producers of 
chemical dyes. In each of the past three years, the U.S. market price 
for Solvent Yellow 163 has declined by ten percent. This severe price 
deflation threatens ColorChem's workforce, comprised primarily of 
highly trained U.S. chemical engineers/ technicians/ operators. The 
immediate tariff elimination proposed in H.R. 3947 necessarily would 
lead to further--perhaps devastating--price declines. This, in turn, 
would undoubtedly lead to the loss of U.S. value-added jobs and have a 
detrimental impact on one of the few remaining U.S. producers of 
solvent dyes.
    A key factor that makes ColorChem--which represents the entirety of 
the U.S. domestic Solvent Yellow 163 industry--so vulnerable to import 
surges and price declines is ColorChem's cost of complying with U.S. 
environmental regulation, including the increased costs associated with 
the Clean Water Act. Without the current duties on Solvent Yellow 163, 
ColorChem could not profitably produce and sell this product at the 
resulting market price. Thus, if H.R. 3947 were adopted and the duties 
on Solvent Yellow 163 were eliminated, ColorChem would have to consider 
discontinuing production of this product. Because Solvent Yellow 163 is 
one of ColorChem's most important products, the elimination of tariffs 
on this product would have severe consequences on the company as a 
whole.
    Significantly, the primary beneficiaries of the proposed tariff 
reduction would be solvent dyes producers in India and the People's 
Republic of China (the ``PRC''). In both countries, production of 
solvent dyes, including Solvent Yellow 163, requires compliance with 
only minimal worker safety and environmental standards. Moreover, the 
PRC subsidizes the production of solvent dyes through export credits. 
The current tariffs on Solvent Yellow 163 mitigate these unfair trade 
advantages and allow ColorChem to compete on a level playing field. 
Without these tariffs, ColorChem would be forced to try to compete in 
an unfair trade environment.
    The loss of Solvent Yellow 163 production in the U.S. would also 
have a detrimental impact of U.S. exports. Currently, ColorChem is 
exporting Solvent Yellow 163 to the EC. This business has grown 
significantly within the last twelve months due to Color Chem's 
superior product and supply. ColorChem expects this export market to 
grow in the EC and even in the Far East However, the economics of dye 
production are such that the price per unit declines with larger 
volumes. Should Color Chem lose a significant portion of its domestic 
business because the duty was suspended, the cost per unit would 
increase, making Color Chem uncompetitive in foreign markets.
    In light of the foregoing, ColorChem respectfully requests that the 
Committee decline to adopt H.R. 3947. Please contact the undersigned if 
there are questions regarding this matter.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                          T. Clark Weymouth
                                               1Daniel J. Cannistra
                          Counsel for ColorChem International Corp.

    ccs: The Honorable Philip M. Crane (U.S. House of Representatives)
       The Honorable Johnny Isakson (U.S. House of Representatives)
       Vincent Kamenicky (U.S. Department of Commerce)
       John Gersick (U.S. International trade Commission)
       Steven Printz (ColorChem International Corp.)
      

                                


H.R. 3948

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Yellow 2 RO 
Feed.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3949

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent Yellow 145.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3950

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Magenta 2 
RO Feed.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3951

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 264.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739

      

                                


H.R. 3952

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 2 
Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3953

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Cyan 485 Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3954

    To suspend temporarily the duty on triflusulfuron methyl 
formulated product.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3955

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Cyan 3 
Stage.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3956

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Cyan 1 RO Feed.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3957

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Pro-Jet Fast Black 287 NA 
Paste/Liquid Feed.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3958

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 168.

              see SunChemical Corporation under H.R. 3739

      

                                


H.R. 3959

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-(Cyclopropyl- - hy-
droxy-methylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethyl 
ester.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3960

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 8- -oxo-emamectin 
benzoate desmethylemamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate 
methanol adduct 2-epl-emamectin benzoate emamectin benzoate 
isomer, 4-epl- -2,3-emamectin benzoate dihydroemamectin 
benzoate.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3961

    To suspend temporarily the duty on propanoic acid, 2-[4-
[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2- propynyl 
ester.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3962

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain end-use products 
containing benzenesulfonamide, 2-(2-chloroethoxy)N-[[4methoxy-
6methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) amino]carbonyl]-and 3,6-dichloro-2-
methoxybenzoic acid.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3963

    To suspend temporarily the duty on benzeneacetic acid, 
(E,E)- -(-(methoxyimino)-2[[[[1-[3-trifluoromethyl) phenyl] 
ethylidene]amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl ester.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3964

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-[4,6-
Bis(difluoromethoxy)-pyrimidin-2-yl]-1-(2- methoxycar-bonyl-
phenylsulfonyl) urea.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3965

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 5-dipropylamino-,, -
trifluoro-4,6-dinitro-o-toluidine.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3966

    To suspend temporarily the duty on sulfur.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3967

    To suspend temporarily the duty on end use products 
containing 3-(6-methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2- 
chloro-ethoxy)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3968

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-
N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine-4-(2,2- difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-
yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3969

To suspend temporarily the duty on pigment blue 60.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3970

    To suspend temporarily the duty on (R)-2-[2,6-
dimethylphenyl)-methoxyacetyl-amino]-propionic acid methyl 
ester propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-
pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynl ester.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3971

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain end-use products 
containing benzothialdiazole-7-carbothioic acid S-methyl ester.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3972

    To suspend temporarily the duty on benzothialdiazole-7-
carbothioic acid S-methyl ester.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3973

    To suspend temporarily the duty on O-(4-Bromo-2-
chlorophenyl)-O-ethyl-S-propyl phosphorothioate.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3974

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-
triazole.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3975

    To suspend temporarily the duty on tetrahydro-3-methyl-N-
nitro-5[[2-phenylthio)-5-thiazolyl]-4 -H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-
imine.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3976

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-
triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3- trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-
urea.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3977

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2,4-Triazin-
3(2H)one,4,5-dihydro-6-methyl-4-[(3-pyridinyl methylene)amino].

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3978

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-
benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3- carbonitrile

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3979

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-(6-methoxy-4-methyl-
1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2- chloro-ethoxy)- phenylsulfonyl]-
urea-3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3988

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Carbamic Acid 
(V-9069).

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3989

    To suspend temporarily the duty on nicosulfuron formulated 
product (``Accent'').

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3990

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Rimsulfuron.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3991

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DPX-E9260.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 3992

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DPX-E6758.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 4026

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide duty-free treatment for certain foodstuffs 
originating in NAFTA countries.
      

                                


                      International Dairy Foods Association
                                       Washington, DC 20005
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Subject: Miscellaneous tariff bill H.R. 4026

Dear Mr. Singleton:

    These comments are filed on behalf of the International Dairy Foods 
Association (IDFA), and its constituent organizations, the Milk 
Industry Foundation, National Cheese Institute, and International Ice 
Cream Association. Together these organizations represent dairy 
processors, manufacturers, marketers and distributors of dairy foods 
and their suppliers. Our members' products account for 85% of the milk, 
yogurt, cheese, ice cream, and other dairy products sold in the United 
States and Canada, and are also exported to a wide range of foreign 
markets.
    We wish to comment on H.R. 4026, a tariff elimination bill 
introduced by Representative Shaw, that would provide duty-free 
treatment for certain foodstuffs originating in NAFTA countries. The 
bill, as we understand it, would provide for duty-free and quota-free 
treatment of certain foodstuffs originating in NAFTA countries, 
provided they are consistent with four specific conditions set forth in 
the bill. Two of these four conditions relate to tariff schedule 
provisions on dairy products.
    We support the general concept of the bill, however we believe it 
is too narrow in scope. We urge the Subcommittee to broaden the scope 
of the bill to allow for duty-free and quota-free entry of a broader 
range of dairy-containing food products within NAFTA.
    Recent changes in the structure of the food industry have resulted 
in more cross-border business relationships. Companies, including dairy 
foods companies, increasingly have plants and investments in more than 
one country, especially within North America. Allowing duty-free and 
quota-free trade in dairy ingredients and dairy products across the 
borders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will enable our dairy 
processors and manufacturers to rationalize their product lines and 
business operations in a more cost-efficient and consumer-oriented 
manner.
    IDFA supports a broader program that would promote more efficient 
use of dairy ingredients within the NAFTA region, by allowing for two-
way duty-free, quota-free trade across the border IDFA Comments on H.R. 
4026 for dairy ingredients and dairy products re-exported within the 
NAFTA market. This would include providing duty-free, quota-free 
treatment to any milk or dairy ingredient (the component) that is 
exported from one NAFTA country to another NAFTA country for further 
processing or use in manufacture, and also duty-free, quota-free 
treatment for the dairy-containing processed or manufactured product 
that is re-exported back to the country of origin of the milk or dairy 
ingredient. As currently drafted, H.R. 4026 only affects the tariff and 
tariff-rate quota treatment of the processed food as it is returned to 
the United States.
    We would like to see implementation of consistent rules among the 
NAFTA countries (including Canada and Mexico) that provide for duty-
free and quota-free treatment of both the dairy ingredients imported by 
processors and manufacturers, as well as duty-free and quota-free 
treatment of the processed or manufactured product that contains dairy 
and is re-exported to another NAFTA country. We would be willing to 
work with the Subcommittee and the Administration as well as our 
industry counterparts in Canada and Mexico to take any steps necessary 
to achieve such a NAFTA-wide regime.
    With respect to the particular approach of H.R. 4026, we question 
the need for the third pre-condition for duty-free treatment set forth 
in the bill, that excludes processing or manufacturing operations that 
change the tariff classification of the good to be returned to the 
United States. This condition will limit the opportunities for U.S. 
suppliers of milk and dairy ingredients to ship to dairy processors and 
manufacturers in Canada and Mexico, and have the processed product 
return to the U.S. market duty-free. As currently drafted, H.R. 4026 
would only allow duty-free treatment to be extended to dairy products 
that receive minimal processing or value-added steps. Fluid milk must 
be returned as fluid milk; milk powder must be returned as milk powder; 
cheese must be returned as cheese. The bill would not apply, for 
example, to U.S. milk powder exported for processing into cheese or 
yogurt, or for U.S. anhydrous milk fat exported for use in processed 
cheese. We believe the heading restrictions contained in the bill's 
third condition are unduly restrictive, and urge that they be dropped. 
As long as the dairy ingredient is of U.S. origin, there should be 
duty-free and quota-free eligibility of the food product returned to 
the United States. Such an approach would encourage greater use of 
U.S.-origin dairy ingredients and greater efficiency gains for value-
added processing operations within the NAFTA region.
    This tariff bill is a step in the right direction, but only a 
limited step. We are anxious to work with the Subcommittee to build on 
the elements of this bill to produce a more effective mechanism for 
dairy processors and manufacturers to increase efficiency, sales and 
jobs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                             Janet A. Nuzum
                                 Vice President and General Counsel
      

                                


H.R. 4223

    To reduce temporarily the duty on Fipronil Technical.

                         No comments submitted.

      

                                


H.R. 4229

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to correct the definition of certain hand-woven wool 
fabrics.

           see American Apparel Manufacturers under H.R. 3704

      

                                


H.R. 4337

    To amend the customs laws of the United States relating to 
procedures with respect to the importation of merchandise.

           see American Apparel Manufacturers under H.R. 3704

      

                                


                       Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
                                       Washington, DC 20005
                                                       May 17, 2000

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 4337

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers--BMW, DaimlerChrysler, 
Fiat, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Isuzu, Mazda, Mitsubishi 
Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo--supports the 
enactment of H.R. 4337, a bill ``To amend the customs laws of the 
United States relating to procedures with respect to the importation of 
merchandise.'' In our view, the bill contains non-controversial 
technical amendments to the customs laws.
    The enactment of H.R. 4337 would further the 1993 Congressional 
mandate to the United States Customs Service contained in Title VI--
Customs Modernization--of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
Public Law 103-182 (``the Mod Act''), to streamline and automate its 
commercial operations. Subtitle B of that Title, ``National Customs 
Automation Programs'' (``NCAP''), contained far-reaching provisions 
authorizing Customs to implement periodic reporting of importations, 
periodic payment of duties, fees and taxes, remote entry filing, and 
reconciliation of import data. Each of these new procedures was 
designed to supplant the entry-by-entry approach to import reporting 
and duty collection with a more business-like, account-based approach.
    It has been seven years since the Mod Act became law and still 
these programs have yet to be implemented fully. While limited tests of 
two of the concepts, reconciliation and remote entry filing, have been 
conducted, minimal effort has been devoted to developing and testing 
the concepts of periodic reporting of import data or periodic payment 
of duties, fees and taxes. Implementation of these programs has been 
retarded, in part, by Customs' lack of funds to replace its antiquated 
processes and systems, and in part by its interpretation of the law. In 
the few instances where Customs has created prototypes, they are so 
narrow in scope that any information gathered from them will have 
limited utility. Thus, the promises to the importing community of 
automated, account-based processing, contained in the Mod Act, simply 
have not been fulfilled.
    H.R. 4337 does not make major, substantive changes to the customs 
law. It would, however, if enacted, eliminate doubt about what the 
Congress intended when it authorized NCAP in 1993.
     It would make clear that minimal information is required 
when goods enter the country, yet sufficient to permit Customs to 
decide whether the goods are admissible into the country. However, it 
would not allow Customs to misuse its control over goods entering the 
country as a tool to enforce laws and regulations unrelated to the 
admissibility of the goods, and thereby delay delivery of shipments.
     It would specify the data elements to be reported monthly 
in the Import Activity Summary Statement, eliminating any question 
about the type and breadth of the information to be submitted to 
Customs periodically, and would permit the Import Activity Summary 
Statement to be transmitted from remote locations.
     It would reauthorize the mid-point interest method for use 
with a reconciliation entry. Use of this method for calculating 
interest on underpayments is essential to the reconciliation program.
     It would eliminate the ``flagging'' of individual entries 
in order to correct information through a reconciliation entry. When 
the Import Activity Summary Statement is implemented there should be no 
need to identify or ``flag'' individual entries.
     It would authorize netting and offsetting of underpayments 
and overpayments. In conducting compliance audits of importers, Customs 
has taken the position that if an entry has been liquidated and the 
liquidation is final, it lacks authority to refund overpayments or 
offset overpayments against underpayments, but it asserts the authority 
of 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1592(d) to collect underpayments. This one-sided 
approach is fundamentally unfair, and would be remedied by this 
provision.
    Enactment of these and the other provisions of H.R. 4337 would 
expedite the shift, commenced by the Congress in 1993, to modern 
account-based import processing and would clarify many of the concepts 
introduced in the Mod Act. At that time, Alliance members were at the 
forefront of companies that developed these concepts and worked with 
Customs and the Congress to refine them and have them incorporated into 
the law. The changes in Customs policy and procedures that have 
occurred since then, particularly Customs growing reliance on post-
importation compliance assessments, require implementation of full, 
account-based procedures.
    We respectfully request that you schedule a hearing on this bill as 
soon as it is feasible and report it favorably to the full Committee 
and then to the House of Representatives. When the Trade Subcommittee 
holds hearings on the bill, the Alliance would be pleased to have the 
opportunity to testify in support of its enactment.

            Sincerely,

                                        Josephine S. Cooper
                              President and Chief Executive Officer
      

                                


Statement of the American Association of Exporters and Importers 
(AAEI), New York, New York

Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous 
                         Duty Suspension Bills

    The American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) 
is a national organization of over 1000 members who export, 
import, distribute and manufacture a complete spectrum of 
products, including chemicals, electronics, machinery, 
footwear, autos/parts, food, household consumer goods, toys, 
specialty items, textiles and apparel. The AAEI membership also 
comprises firms that serve the international trade community, 
including customs brokers, freight forwarders, banks, 
attorneys, insurance firms and carriers. AAEI members conduct 
operations in all fifty states, employing millions of U.S. 
workers. Together, AAEI companies account for a large majority 
of non-military, commercial U.S. trade.
    AAEI is pleased to respond to Chairman Crane's April 20, 
2000, Advisory, requesting comments on Technical Corrections to 
U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    As the largest association concentrating on policies and 
practices of the U.S. Customs Service, AAEI urges this 
Committee to include H.R. 4337 in its miscellaneous trade bill. 
H.R. 4337 proposes to amend the customs laws of the United 
States with respect to the entry process for imported 
merchandise. H.R. 4337 is intended to give Customs the 
statutory authorization to make minor, but important, practical 
improvements to its entry process while Customs and the trade 
community await development of Customs' long-overdue, new 
computer system and to fulfill more of the promise of the 1994 
Mod Act. AAEI has testified before the Trade Subcommittee on 
numerous occasions as to the looming national crisis 
surrounding the delay in getting this system up and running. In 
the meantime, H.R. 4337 seeks to apply some of the safeguards 
and benefits of a modern system to Customs' current antiquated 
system while respecting the statutory mandate of both Customs 
and the Census Bureau.
    The Customs Modernization Act of 1994 was expected to 
initiate a new era in international trade by enabling Customs 
to create efficient automated processes that would interface 
almost seamlessly with the private sector's newly re-engineered 
integrated information management systems. No longer would 
commerce be restrained by entry and duty assessment procedures 
developed when information could be moved from place to place 
only by hand and cargo moved slowly in relatively small 
batches.
    Unfortunately, the promise of the Mod Act has not been 
realized. The effectiveness of the Mod Act was premised on the 
early development and installation of a modern computer system 
at Customs. That system has never come into being. At best, it 
will not exist for years to come. Customs has implemented only 
parts of the Mod Act, and to a point, we can understand its 
reluctance to write regulations for computer-dependent programs 
when it is not clear what kind of system, if any, will be 
available.
    As the private sector has gained increasingly advanced 
business software and hardware systems, we have learned, with 
Customs, how much further we could automate Customs' processes 
than was assumed when the Mod Act was written almost ten years 
ago. When we can know with some assurance that Customs will be 
getting a modern computer system, when it will be available, 
and what its capabilities will be, we will be able to work with 
Customs to design even better approaches to entry processing 
and duty assessment.
    As you can understand, we are most anxious to help develop 
those procedures. In contrast with the major efficiencies and 
data capabilities achieved by the private sector in the 1990's, 
Customs' antiquated methods are painfully visible. We know how 
more efficiently Customs could be operating. We know how much 
less cost we would incur if Customs were operating at this 
level of efficiency. And we are fearful of the inevitable day 
when Customs' data systems no longer operate at all.
    AAEI believes that the funding of a modern computer 
hardware and software system for Customs is one of the best 
investments the federal government can make today. The private 
sector has made enormous investments in such systems and the 
benefits are clear. Customs would be reaping those same 
benefits if those systems were available to it. The benefits 
would not be solely to importers but to the economy and to all 
taxpayers. At the same time we believe that the continued delay 
in obtaining a new system is one of the most dangerous acts the 
federal government could take because even a weeklong outage of 
the current Customs system would have negative impacts 
throughout the U.S. economy, up and down the supply chains of 
the automobile, food, chemical, pharmaceutical, apparel, and 
retail industries. If these industries cannot obtain needed 
imported components and are forced to reduce operations, 
domestic suppliers, employees, grocers, and the mom and pop 
stores of Main Street will be hurt just surely as if there were 
a nationwide strike.
    Rather than waiting for a new system before proposing any 
of the useful updates to the Customs laws, the private sector 
has proposed the reforms in H.R. 4337, necessary updating of 
the Customs laws that are not dependent on a new computer 
system. Together with Customs we believe that these statutory 
changes will enable Customs to achieve benefits with its 
current computer system. These improvements do require minimal 
statutory change, however. The incremental changes this year, 
in combination with regulatory changes at Customs, will provide 
important benefits to U.S. business, consumers and the economy. 
They will greatly help the private sector cope with the lack of 
modern computer systems at Customs.
    In drafting the provisions of H.R. 4337, industry has been 
mindful of the important mandate of both Customs and the Census 
Bureau. We believe that these provisions do not compromise 
either agency's ability to meet its statutory duties.
    For these reasons, AAEI urges this Committee to pass H.R. 
4337, alone or as part of a miscellaneous trade bill.
    We would be pleased to provide further information and to 
discuss with you the implications of this bill or its 
individual provisions.
      

                                


                           American Electronics Association
                                 Santa Clara, CA 95056-0990
                                                       May 17, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Request for Written Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    The American Electronics Association (AEA), a 3,000-member 
organization representing the U.S. electronics, software and 
information technologies industries, respectfully submits the following 
input with the focus on modernizing the entry process, and Congress' 
part in financially supporting this role.

H.R. 4337

    AEA supports H.R. 4337 for its modernizing affect on the 
U.S. Customs entry processes. However, AEA requests that 
Congress set up oversight of these measures in order to insure 
that the implementing regulations are promulgated; unlike 
similar authority granted under PL 95-410, 1978 (sec 103) and 
PL 103-182, 1993 (sec 637). Attachments A and B are from Senate 
Reports 95-778, and 103-189 for the relevant sections requiring 
regulations promulgating importer activity summary statements 
(IASS).

Linkage to Modernization

    Although there is existing authority and growing urgency to 
implement these legal procedural improvements, in order to 
preserve the expansion of the U.S. (and world) economy, in 
AEA's opinion the benefits of these H.R. 4337 legal procedural 
improvements will be frustrated unless Customs is granted the 
funds for a modernized commercial computer system which can 
implement the (existing) legal authority. A recent survey of 
AEA members' customs compliance costs to existing U.S. Customs 
legal procedures shows a nullifying 3-6% overhead expense on 
our predominantly duty free importations.
    We believe the stewardship obligations on Congress extend 
to this area and that they require Congress to appropriate the 
necessary computer systems funding to support this overdue 
procedural reform of the Customs entry process. Further, we 
believe these obligations are embodied in H.R. 4337.

Drawback

    In promulgating new regulations to implement Mod-Act (1993) 
changes to drawback, Customs inserted an new procedural 
requirement for ``determination of commercial 
interchangeability'' on Substitution Unused (Same Condition) 
Merchandise drawback [19 USC 1313 (j) (2), 19 CFR 191.32(c)] 
which we believe is being interpreted as a new mandatory 
requirement for filing, paying or liquidating claims under 19 
USC 1313(j)(2).
    Previously, exporters in compliance with the law designated 
merchandise that was substituted and drawback eligible (usually 
by part number), Customs paid the claim, and then Regulatory 
Audit subsequently audited the drawback records for compliance.
    We are concerned that this new pre-determination imposes a 
curious non-public governmental standard of commercial 
interchangeability which is inconsistent with other equivalent 
Substitution Unused merchandise regulations under Manufacturing 
Drawback.
    AEA asks for no statute change as we think none is 
warranted. Nonetheless, AEA does ask for House Report directive 
language indicating that in order to facilitate Unused 
Substitution Merchandise drawback (19 USC 1313 (j)(2)) 
consistent with the liberalizing change from ``fungible 
merchandise'' that there be no requirement for a claimant to 
seek a Customs ``determination of commercial 
interchangeability'' prior to receiving approval for waiver of 
prior notice to export, filing, paying or liquidating the claim 
under existing law. This insures that the Customs regulations 
and their interpretive procedures are no more procedurally 
burdensome than previously required for substantially the same 
drawback claims and where no limiting language was introduced 
in the Mod-Act.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of our views.

            Sincerely,
                                          AnnMarie McIntyre
                                         Director, Trade Regulation

    [Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]
      

                                


Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
                                        Arlington, VA 22209
                                                       May 19, 2000

The Honorable Philip Crane
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 4337

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers (AIAM), I am writing to express our strong support for 
H.R. 4337. AIAM believes the amendments contained in this legislation 
are largely technical in nature and should not be controversial. They 
offer much-needed clarification and guidance on a number of important 
reforms contemplated in the 1993 Customs Modernization and Informed 
Compliance Act (``Mod Act''), but which are still awaiting full 
implementation.
    AIAM is a trade association representing the interests of United 
States subsidiaries of international automotive companies, including 
many of the largest companies in America.\1\ Collectively, our 
companies are responsible for billions of dollars annually in cross-
border trade, involving all aspects of manufacturing and distribution 
of passenger cars, light trucks and multipurpose vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ AIAM members include American Honda Motor Co., American Suzuki 
Motor Corp., Daewoo Motor America, Hyundai Motor America, Isuzu 
America, Kia Motors America, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Nissan 
North America, Saab Cars USA, Subaru of America, and Toyota Motor 
Sales, U.S.A. The Association also represents original equipment 
suppliers, other automotive-related trade associations, and motor 
vehicle manufacturers not currently engaged in the sale of motor 
vehicles in the United States. During the past 20 years, AIAM members 
have invested billions of dollars in new production and distribution 
capacity, creating tens of thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs 
across the country in manufacturing, supplier industries, ports, 
distribution centers, headquarters, R&D centers and automobile 
dealerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AIAM and its member companies were early and active supporters of 
the Mod Act. With the Customs Service, we have long seen this 
legislation as an essential building block for helping move the U.S. 
customs administration process into the twenty-first century. Much 
progress has already been made, with attendant benefits both for the 
Customs Service and business community. In a number of areas, however, 
important Mod Act reforms remain to be fully implemented.
    As was well understood at the time, the Mod Act was a complex, 
carefully-balanced compromise built on commitments and reasonable 
concessions from all sides. AIAM member companies, along with others in 
the business community, have expended substantial resources to satisfy 
industry commitments to improve compliance with the trade laws through 
automation and cost-effective, modern business practices. But we have 
not reaped the full benefits of these investments because key Mod Act 
reforms like periodic data reporting in aggregate form and periodic 
payment of duties, taxes and fees have still not been initiated, more 
than six years after passage of the Mod Act. The Mod Act envisioned a 
change in the way the Customs Service and trade community conduct 
business, from a transaction-based system to an account-based one. The 
failure to implement these key Mod Act reforms has prevented us from 
making this transition, leaving AIAM companies mired in the out-dated, 
inefficient transaction-based model the Mod Act was expressly designed 
to eliminate.
    AIAM believes that H.R. 4337 would not make any major substantive 
change to U.S. customs law. Rather, the bill's core provisions would 
reaffirm and facilitate the implementation of express or implied 
commitments in the Mod Act to:
     Minimize data requirements for cargo release;

    The Mod Act promised to eliminate unnecessary data requirements for 
cargo release ``in return for'' an importer commitment to ``maintain 
and produce information after the fact.'' This would be accomplished by 
limiting requirements to information actually needed to make 
admissibility and release decisions.
     Permit periodic filing of aggregate import information;

    H.R. 4337 would reaffirm Congress' intent in the Mod Act to provide 
importers the option of filing an ``import activity summary statement'' 
(IASS) each month in lieu of entry summaries for individual 
transactions, and provide needed clarification on the categories of 
data required for duty, tax and other administrative purposes.
     Renew Customs Service authority to make ``mid-point'' 
calculations for interest on underpayments; and

    H.R. 4337 would reaffirm the Customs Service's authority to use the 
mid-point method for interest calculations, without which the 
reconciliation program would be unworkable.
     Provide for netting and offsetting of under-and over-
declarations.

    H.R. 4337 would allow importers the option of using an account-
based approach in which importers would receive credit for overvalued-
declarations that could be used to net out or off-set undervalued-
declarations during the same import period.
    AIAM believes it is time to move forward on these measures, and 
H.R. 4337 provides a clear mandate to the U.S. Customs Service to do 
so. Timely implementation of the provisions of H.R. 4337 would 
significantly reduce entry processing costs, according to one estimate, 
by as much as 30 percent. AIAM believes that this would be accomplished 
with no diminution in the ability of Customs to fulfill its duty to the 
public to enforce the trade laws at the border. Furthermore, we believe 
that revising import procedures to reflect the realities of automation 
and other modern-day business practices would make data collection more 
accurate and improve overall compliance with the trade laws.
    AIAM appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important 
issue, and respectfully urges the Trade Subcommittee and the Ways and 
Means Committee to favorably report H.R. 4337 at the soonest possible 
opportunity.

             Sincerely,

                                       Timothy C. MacCarthy
                                                    President & CEO
      

                                


                        Canadian Importers Association Inc.
                                   Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K8
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments on H.R. 4337

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    On behalf of the Canadian Importers Association, I am grateful for 
the opportunity to submit comments concerning HR4337.
    Canadian importers welcome the initiative to amend U. S. Customs 
Law (HR4337). They assert that the initiative will ultimately modernize 
and simplify the importation procedures, which will benefit both Canada 
and the United States.
    We wish to clarify comments from the U.S. Bureau of Census 
concerning Canadian importers' preference for filing non-aggregate 
data. Canadian importers prefer periodic, aggregate filing of import 
information rather than discreet filing of transactions. The 
Association supports the implementation of modernized and efficient 
custom procedures, such as Custom Self Assessment. The Canada Customs 
and Revenue Agency is working with Canada's international trade 
community on ``Custom Self Assessment,'' which aims to simplify cross-
border procedures.
    Thank you.

            Sincerely

                                              Bob Armstrong
                                                          President
      

                                


                                           Caterpillar Inc.
                                Peoria, Illinois 61629-7310
    May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Request for Comments on H.R. 4337

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    In response to the Subcommittee on Trade's notice of April 20, 
2000, Caterpillar Inc. submits the following comments in support of 
H.R. 4337. As you may be aware, Caterpillar is one of the largest 
companies in the world and is the global leader in the manufacture of 
construction, mining, and agricultural equipment. Caterpillar has a 
presence in most of the 50 states and employs nearly 70,000 persons 
world-wide.
    As with most multinational companies, Caterpillar imports a number 
of items to assist in the production of Caterpillar products. In 1999, 
Caterpillar was one of the top thirty importers of goods into the 
United States. To support its import operations, Caterpillar has 
invested significant resources in order to comply with United States 
trade regulations, including Customs Service rules.
    Given its large volume of imports into the United States, 
Caterpillar pays millions of dollars annually to process entries. Much 
of this expense comes as a result of the transaction-based process 
currently utilized by the Customs Service. If the provisions embodied 
in H.R. 4337 were to be implemented, Caterpillar would see a reduction 
of at least 30 percent in entry processing transaction costs. 
Improvements such as periodic filing of entry data in aggregate form, 
periodic payment of duties, taxes, and fees, and the filing of 
essential data for cargo release would contribute to Caterpillar's 
world-wide competitiveness by reducing Caterpillar's import-related 
costs by millions of dollars.
    Caterpillar believes that the improvements contained in H.R. 4337 
are largely technical in nature and represent a realization of the 
Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act (``Mod Act''). It is 
time that import mechanisms reflected the realities of modern business 
as mandated by the Mod Act. Otherwise, American business has lost the 
benefit of the bargain negotiated with the passage of the Mod Act. 
Caterpillar believes that adoption of H.R. 4337 will not undermine the 
government's ability to perform its responsibilities, including the 
examination and inspection of goods and the collection of trade 
statistics. Rather, H.R. 4337 will greatly enhance the customs process 
and will allow for better data collection and increased compliance by 
importers.
    For the reasons listed above, Caterpillar encourages favorable 
treatment of H.R. 4337.

            Sincerely yours,

                                             Eric F. Hinton
                                            Legal Services Division
      

                                


                                              ConAgra, Inc.
                                       Washington, DC 20006
                                                       May 18, 2000

Hon. Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6354
Re: H.R. 4337

Dear Chairman Crane:
    ConAgra, Inc., a diversified international food company with 
headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, supports H.R. 4337 and urges its 
prompt enactment.
    Through a network of operating companies working interdependently 
throughout the United States and thirty three other countries, ConAgra 
is dedicated to satisfying the world's appetite for safe, delicious, 
convenient and affordable food. ConAgra's products cover the entire 
food chain from crop inputs such as fertilizer to convenient, table 
ready prepared foods. Some of our leading brands include Healthy 
Choice, Butterball, Parkay, Peter Pan, Hunt's and Swift Premium.
    In conducting its global business operations ConAgra imports 
millions of dollars worth of raw materials and ingredients annually. 
For this reason, ConAgra has a significant interest in legislation that 
affects procedures for importation of merchandise into the United 
States.
    ConAgra strongly believes that Customs procedures should be 
designed to provide accurate and timely information to Customs with 
regard to the classification and valuation of merchandise so that 
duties can be assessed fairly and accurately. At the same time, it is 
critically important that Customs procedures be designed so as to 
minimize burdens on importers in order that they can compete 
effectively in providing affordable products to American consumers. 
ConAgra believes that enactment of H.R. 4337 will further these 
objectives by facilitating accurate reporting of classification and 
valuation information in a manner which does not subject importers to 
unwarranted penalties.
    The beneficial impact of H.R. 4337 can be illustrated by a real 
world example. ConAgra imports grain from Canada which is used to 
produce flour for a variety of baked goods, pasta products, and 
livestock feed ingredients. The quantity and quality of grain actually 
delivered to ConAgra will sometimes vary from the purchase 
specifications. This occurs because the purchase specifications are 
targets which cannot always be matched precisely. Entry documents are 
prepared on the basis of information provided by the supplier. However, 
when the grain arrives it is weighed and tested. Such weighing and 
testing can reveal variations in quantity, protein and moisture content 
or other characteristics which effect value, that are sufficient to 
require that corrected entry information be provided to Customs. For 
example, the Canadian supplier may deliver grain with a protein content 
that is close to, but not precisely, what was specified by ConAgra. 
Similarly, because of the method of loading the rail cars in which the 
grain is delivered may contain somewhat more or less grain than was 
invoiced. At the present time such unintentional discrepancies must 
either be flagged upon entry and reconciled within 15 months, or by 
admitting to an error in a Supplemental Information Letter or a Prior 
Disclosure. Customs views admission in a Supplemental Information 
Letter or a Prior Disclosure as acknowledgments of error subject to 
penalties.
    Under the provisions of H.R. 4337, ConAgra would have one month to 
ascertain the actual quantity and quality of the grain actually 
received. Any discrepancy between what was described on the supplier's 
invoice and what was actually received could then be reported on a 
monthly Import Activity Summary Statement (``IASS'') which covers all 
entries during the preceding month. This new procedure will allow 
ConAgra to assure the timely submission of accurate entry data without 
fear of being penalized for its efforts.
    Similarly, H.R. 4337 eliminates the need to flag entries for 
reconciliation. Currently, if any information provided upon entry of 
the merchandise is incorrect or incomplete, the entire entry must be 
flagged before a reconciliation may be filed at the end of the year. 
For example, if an importer does not know the exact amount of prepaid 
freight charges included in the price of the merchandise it must flag 
the entry for later reconciliation when it is able to obtain that 
information. A reconciliation must be filed at the end of the year. 
This process is not only burdensome on the importer but it suggests to 
Customs that the information contained in the flagged entry may be 
incorrect for any number of reasons. H.R. 4337 eliminates this problem 
by allowing importers to file reconciliations at the end of the year 
without flagging individual entries.
    These and other provisions of H.R. 4337 recognize the realities of 
the ever increasing pace of global commerce. They enable importers to 
provide accurate and timely entry data based on the merchandise as 
actually received. Indeed, they encourage accurate reporting by 
eliminating the spectre of penalties in response to good faith 
disclosure of inadvertent, and in some cases, inevitable discrepancies 
between information provided by the supplier and the actual quantity 
and condition of the merchandise as received by the importer. From the 
standpoint of Customs compliance this will have the further advantage 
of eliminating excuses for inaccuracies by making it easier to submit 
accurate entry data. If an importer chooses not to avail itself of that 
opportunity, it has no excuse for inaccurate reporting.
    For the foregoing reasons ConAgra urges prompt enactment of H.R. 
4337. If we can provide any further information that might be helpful 
to the Subcommittee in its consideration of H.R. 4337, we will be happy 
to do so on request.

            Very truly yours,
                                           Brent A. Baglien
      

                                


                                            DaimlerChrysler
                                           Auburn Hills, MI
                                                       May 12, 2000

The Honorable Bill Archer
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 4337

Dear Representative Archer:
    DaimlerChrysler supports the enactment of H.R. 4337, a bill ``To 
amend the customs laws of the United States relating to procedures with 
respect to the importation of merchandise.'' H.R. 4337 will assist in 
fulfilling the 1993 Customs Modernization Act mandate that Customs 
commercial operations be both modernized and simplified. It is our 
opinion that this bill contains non-controversial technical amendments 
to the customs laws, which will result in consistent, practical and 
simplified customs procedures.
    As a major importer with over 500,000 auto part entries per year 
valued at approximately $3 billion, we believe that the account-based 
approach addressed by this legislation will assist both the Trade and 
the U.S. Customs Service. Trade benefits include streamlined customs 
reporting and payment procedures combined with increased compliance 
rates. These benefits will ensure that our Just-In-Time inventory 
program is not jeopardized by border crossing delays. The major benefit 
we see for the U.S. Customs Service is the ability to redirect valuable 
resources away from transaction-based manual intensive clerical 
activities to the protection of the United States borders.
    DaimlerChrysler respectfully requests that you schedule a hearing 
on this bill and present it in a positive manner to the full Committee 
and then the House of Representatives.

            Sincerely,

                                          Janet Y. Sangster
                                                    DaimlerChrysler
                           Director, International Supply & Customs
      

                                


                                  Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
                                  Washington, DC 20006-2401
                                                       May 19, 2000

    Mr. A. L. Singleton
    Chief of Staff
    Committee on Ways and Means
    U.S. House of Representatives
    1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
    Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments on H.R. 4337

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    We are writing on behalf of our client, Federal-Mogul Corporation, 
to comment in support of H.R. 4337, which would amend the customs laws 
relating to importation procedures, as well as making changes with 
respect to valuation, drawback, instruments of international traffic 
and entireties. Federal-Mogul Corporation, headquartered in Southfield, 
Michigan, is a global manufacturer and distributor of automotive, heavy 
duty and industrial parts to original equipment manufacturers and 
aftermarket customers.
    Federal-Mogul Corporation is generally in favor of the proposed 
changes and commends Representative Thomas for his sponsorship of this 
legislation. H.R. 4337 would make certain changes that are needed to 
complete the implementation of the 1993 Customs Modernization Act 
(``Mod Act''). While the Mod Act was intended to provide for a shift 
from entry-by-entry processing to periodic entry and reconciliation, or 
an account-based approach, this objective cannot be successfully 
achieved without the additional amendments provided in H.R. 4337.
    Although we agree with most of the changes proposed in H.R. 4337, 
we do have specific comments with respect to certain sections of the 
proposed bill. Our specific comments are set forth below.

Section 1--

    Section 1(a) of the bill proposes to amend the statute to 
require the submission of minimal documentation to obtain the 
release of merchandise. While we agree with the intent of 
section 1(a), the proposed legislation is ambiguous in 
describing the relevant requirements. The legislation proposes 
amending 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1484 to provide that, at the time of 
entry, the importer need only file such documentation as is 
necessary to enable the Customs Service to determine whether 
the merchandise can be released. It does not specify what 
documentation is required at that point. While it is true that 
the proposed legislation does contain language specifying what 
documentation must be submitted at some point in the entry 
process (either before release or in the entry summary or 
Importer Activity Summary Statement (``IASS'')), it is not 
clear which portion of the documentation is required for 
release and which is required later when the entry summary or 
IASS is filed. It is also unclear what is meant by ``unless the 
Customs Service has granted the importer an alternative means 
to obtain release.''
    As set forth in the bill, the list of documentation 
required to be submitted at some point in the entry process 
would be as follows:

        1. a description of the merchandise;
        2. the classification number for the merchandise (to the sixth 
        digit);
        3. the country of origin; and
        4. other documents required to determine admissibility.

    The requirement that the tariff number be stated to the sixth digit 
before release may not go far enough. Many admissibility decisions 
require classification to the eighth, or even the tenth, digit. Also, 
the list does not include documents necessary to establish a value for 
the merchandise. While we agree that the value of merchandise does not 
generally affect admissibility, in certain situations, where 
classification depends on the unit value of the goods, the absence of 
value information could make it impossible to classify the merchandise.
    The amendments proposed in section 1(b) of the legislation would 
reduce the examination requirements that must be satisfied for release 
of the merchandise. This language does not appear to be completely 
consistent with the language of section 1(a) in that it addresses only 
considerations of health, safety and welfare and the correctness of the 
description and country of origin. The requirement in section 1(a) that 
all information needed to determine admissibility be submitted before 
the merchandise can be released goes further. Admissibility decisions 
can require more than a correct description of the merchandise, a 
correct statement of the country of origin, and evidence that there is 
no threat to health, safety and welfare. For example, admissibility may 
hinge on whether a proper visa has been obtained for quota merchandise.

Section 2--

    We agree with the proposal in section 2 of the bill to 
provide for remote filing of the IASS.

Section 3--

    Section 3 proposes to allow the filing of monthly import 
activity in the form of an IASS containing information totaled 
by tariff number, country of origin and any relevant special 
duty indicators. Any discrepancies between the entry and the 
entry summary or IASS would be treated as clerical errors (in 
the absence of fraud).
    We certainly agree that discrepancies addressed at the time 
of the filing of the entry summary or IASS should be treated as 
clerical errors. However, while we also believe that the 
monthly aggregate statement filing proposed by the bill is a 
step in the right direction, we believe it does not go far 
enough. In effect, the IASS will still be treated like an 
entry. It may still be necessary, at least in some situations, 
to go back to a particular entry or shipment if changes are 
required. For example, an importer may import a single product 
from a single country but from multiple vendors. If a value 
adjustment is needed with respect to only one of the vendors 
and the aggregate reporting method has been used, it may be 
difficult to make the required adjustment.

Section 4--

    We have no objections to or comments on section 4, which 
would require the Customs Service to prescribe an alternative 
mid-point interest methodology in calculating interest due on 
underpayments of duties.

Section 5--

    Section 5 proposes to eliminate the requirement to flag 
entries for reconciliation and provides for reconciliation of 
any information required by subsection (a)(1)(B) of 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1484. We are in favor of this proposal. Under an account-
based approach, it should not be necessary to flag issues at 
the time of entry because corrections are not made on an entry-
by-entry basis. Elimination of the requirement to flag entries 
will allow importers to correct errors, such as quantity 
discrepancies, in situations in which it is not known at the 
time of entry that there may be a problem.
    We are concerned, however, that, based on the language used 
in the proposed legislation, reconciliation may not cover 
classification and country of origin, as these are not 
specifically covered in subsection (a)(1)(B) of 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1484. This confusion arises because, as discussed in our 
comments to section 1 of the bill, it is not clear what 
documents are meant to be covered by proposed subsection 
(a)(1)(A) and which are covered by subsection (a)(1)(B).

Section 6--

    We wholeheartedly agree with the proposal to net and offset 
overpayments and underpayments of duties. The practice now in 
effect is manifestly unfair to importers in that it requires 
the payment to the Customs Service of any additional duties 
due, even after liquidation, but does not allow for the refund 
of overpayments (where liquidation has become final) or the 
netting of overpayments against underpayments. Many clerical 
errors are made by the shipper and cannot be controlled by the 
importer. This proposal would allow the importer to correct 
mistakes without faulting the importer for mistakes it can not 
control.
    We do have some questions with respect to this section of 
the bill, however. The bill does not define ``relevant 
period.'' Also, although we believe the intention is to allow 
importers to net over-and underpayments with respect to all 
products imported during the period, without regard to tariff 
categories or any other criteria, this is not completely clear.
    Finally, because the proposed legislation does not appear 
to provide for refunds from the Customs Service in those 
situations in which the net amount is an overpayment to the 
Customs Service, we do not believe the legislation goes far 
enough. The Customs Service should also be required to pay back 
any excess amounts collected from the importer.

Section 7--

    Section 7 of the bill would impose a requirement on the 
Customs Service that it look at a representative number of 
transactions in determining whether a related party price is 
influenced by a relationship between the buyer and the seller, 
and not just at one or two transactions. First, we note that 
there appears to be a typographical error in the legislation. 
We believe the reference should be to section 1401a(b)(2) 
rather than 1401(b)(2).
    We agree with the intention of this section of the bill. 
However, we do have some problems with the proposal. The bill 
does not state what the ``representative time frame'' will be 
and what will be considered ``in the normal course of trade'' 
in merchandise of the ``same class or kind.'' Also, it is 
unclear what would happen if an importer has some ``good'' 
(i.e., not influenced by the relationship) and some ``bad'' 
(i.e., influenced) transactions. How will the Customs Service 
determine whether, overall, the price used for the imported 
merchandise is a legitimate price for customs valuation 
purposes?

Section 8--

    Section 8 would amend the statute to provide drawback for 
merchandise destroyed within 5 years as well as merchandise 
exported within 5 years, define destruction for these purposes, 
and provide for drawback even when valuable waste or scrap 
results from the manufacturing process. We are in favor of this 
section of the bill, particularly the part addressing waste and 
scrap, because we believe it is good policy to encourage 
recycling in the drawback arena.

Section 9--

    We are in favor of the proposal to simplify the procedures 
with respect to instruments of international traffic 
(``IITs''). This proposal provides that certain containers are 
not goods subject to the tariff schedule. However, it does not 
require that they be used in international traffic. We are 
concerned that this leaves open the possibility that containers 
being imported for sale in the United States would enter U.S. 
commerce both without being subject to the tariff schedule and 
without being subject to other laws intended to protect the 
public from unsafe articles.

Section 10--

    Section 10 proposes to treat certain machinery and 
equipment imported in more than one shipment as a single 
machine if the importer files an election and demonstrates to 
the satisfaction of the Customs Service that there is a 
preexisting agreement to purchase the complete article. Under 
current law, parts of a machine cannot be classified as the 
complete article if they are not imported in one shipment or in 
shipments entered on the same day.
    We are in favor of this proposal, which addresses the 
problem of classification of machines too large to be imported 
in one shipment. However, we are concerned about whether the 
addition of another general note defining entireties will be 
sufficient to achieve the intended result. General Rule of 
Interpretation 2(a), which will remain unchanged by this 
legislation, has been interpreted to require that in order to 
be classified as the complete article, parts must be imported 
in a single shipment (or on a single day) and must have the 
essential character of the complete article. This appears to be 
inconsistent with the intended goal of section 10 of the 
legislation. Also, there is a need to define terms, such as 
``machinery tools'' and ``equipment,'' and it is not clear how 
the Customs Service will be able to determine whether there is 
a binding agreement to purchase a complete machine and how long 
a time period should be allowed for all of the parts of the 
machine to be imported.
    In sum, on behalf of our client, Federal-Mogul Corporation, 
we support H.R. 4337. We believe the legislation would be 
improved if the changes and clarifications described in our 
specific comments were incorporated into the bill. In 
particular, we believe there is a need for clarification of a 
number of terms used in the legislation.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                            Janet A. Forest
      

                                


                                       Floral Trade Council
                                          Haslett, MI 48840
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 4337--Comments of the Floral Trade Council

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    The Floral Trade Council (FTC) appreciates the opportunity to 
submit comments to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives regarding H.R. 4337, which would amend U.S. customs 
laws relating to import procedures.\1\ The FTC is a U.S. trade 
association composed of growers and/or wholesalers of fresh cut 
flowers. The FTC is based in Haslett, Michigan, and its members are 
located throughout the United States. The President of the FTC resides 
in Salinas, California. The FTC is committed both to finding markets 
abroad for U.S. fresh cut flowers and to working to see that U.S. laws 
provide adequate relief for domestic industries harmed by unfair trade 
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Advisory from the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee 
on Trade, No. TR-20, April 20, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a domestic industry that has used the unfair trade laws in the 
past, the FTC is concerned that changes proposed to customs laws in 
H.R. 4337 not undermine the effectiveness of antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws and other import relief laws.
    As noted below, the FTC would like to see H.R. 4337 amended (1) to 
provide for the notation of antidumping or countervailing duty orders 
or any other trade law relief measures at time of entry and in import 
activity summary statements and (2) to bring the language of H.R. 4337 
regarding transaction values of imported merchandise more closely in 
line with current law.

I. Notation of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Orders at 
Time of Entry and in Import Activity Summary Statements

    The FTC understands that the purpose of H.R. 4337 is to 
streamline and simplify filing procedures for importers. 
Accordingly, the bill calls for the filing of minimal 
information by importers at the time of entry. H.R. 4337 at 
Section 1(a)(2)(C) would require that importers provide the 
Customs Service upon entry a description of the merchandise, 
the merchandise's tariff classification, its country of origin, 
and admissibility documentation.
    H.R. 4337 also provides for minimal reporting of 
information in import activity summary statements. Under 
Sections 3(a)(2) and (c) of the bill, importers would report 
tariff numbers, countries of origin, and special program 
indicators, e.g., GSP, on these statements.
    Under existing law, importers of merchandise subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders are required to make 
deposits of estimated special duties upon entry.\2\ As this 
requirement will continue under H.R. 4337, the Customs Service 
should ensure that any new forms or streamlined procedures 
maintain the present system for ensuring compliance with the 
requirements: importers have to indicate on their entry forms 
that their merchandise is subject to an order and make special 
duty deposits at the time of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1671e(a)(3) and 1673e(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FTC respectfully requests that H.R. 4337 be amended to 
require that importers note at time of entry and in importer 
activity summary statements whether the reported merchandise is 
subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order or any 
other trade law relief measures. The FTC is concerned that, 
through the streamlined process proposed in H.R. 4337, the 
Customs Service may in some cases be unaware as to whether 
imported products are subject to antidumping and countervailing 
duty orders or other trade law relief measures. This 
circumstance could result in the Customs Service inadvertently 
failing to suspend liquidation on some entries. Such a 
situation could be obviated, however, if Customs were put on 
notice at time of entry or through importer activity summary 
statements whether imported merchandise is subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders or other trade law 
relief measures.

II. Transaction Values of Imported Merchandise

    The FTC is concerned about variances of language in H.R. 
4337 with current law pertaining to circumstances of sale that 
may be considered in determining whether ``transaction values'' 
may be used in related party import transactions.\3\ Section 7 
of H.R. 4337 states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Please note that H.R. 4337 refers to ``19 U.S.C. 1401(b)(2).'' 
The FTC believes that the bill was intended to read ``19 U.S.C. 
1401a(b)(2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In determining whether the circumstances of the sale of the 
        imported merchandise indicate that the relationship between the 
        buyer and seller did not influence the price actually paid or 
        payable, there shall be taken into account other sales during a 
        representative timeframe in the normal course of trade in 
        merchandise of the same class or kind.
    The FTC has two specific concerns regarding this language. 
First, the language ``merchandise of the same class or kind'' 
in Section 7 is significantly broader than current law 
regarding transaction values between related buyers and 
sellers. Current law, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401a(b)(2)(B)(i), 
compares the transaction value of imported merchandise and the 
transaction value of ``identical merchandise, or of similar 
merchandise.'' The more specific language of the current law 
provides for closer comparisons between merchandise and is thus 
viewed by the FTC as preferable.
    Second, Section 7 of H.R. 4337 does not require that sales 
be ``to unrelated buyers in the United States'' as does 19 
U.S.C. Sec. language in H.R. 4337 could lower the standard for 
determining the acceptability of ``transaction values'' in 
related party transactions.
    Accordingly, the FTC respectfully requests that Section 7 
of H.R. 4337 be amended, first, to replace ``merchandise of the 
same class or kind'' with ``identical merchandise, or of 
similar merchandise,'' and second, to add ``to unrelated buyers 
in the United States'' at the end of Section 7.

III. Conclusion

    The FTC would be pleased to participate further in the 
development of H.R. 4337. If you have any questions regarding 
the FTC's position on this legislation, I may be reached at 
(831) 442-2508.

            Sincerely,
                                             Kenichi Bunden
                              President of the Floral Trade Council
      

                                

                                     JCPenney Company, Inc.
                                       Plano, TX 75024-3698
                                                       May 16, 2000

The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman, House Ways & Means Committee
United States House of Representatives
1102 Longworth
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 4337--To Effect Full Implementation of the 1993 Customs Mod 
Act

Dear Chairman Archer,
    On behalf of JCPenney Purchasing Corporation, I am writing to 
express support for H.R. 4337. This legislation will effect full 
implementation of the 1993 Customs Modernization and Informed 
Compliance Act (``the Mod Act''). Since enactment into law on December 
8, 1993, implementation by US Customs has been slow and often 
selective. As a result, the burden for compliance has been shifted to 
the importing company from Customs without delivery of the promised 
administrative efficiencies to reduce both public and private sector 
costs.
    As US duty rates decline, US companies are spending a 
disproportionate amount to build systems and implement procedures to 
manage import compliance. The enactment of H.R. 4337 would remedy the 
unbalanced implementation of the Mod Act, reduce the drain on Customs 
resources and facilitate importer compliance by promoting modern cost-
effective compliance import laws. The bill is revenue neutral and will 
meet or exceed Bureau of Statistics reporting requirements, while 
providing more accurate trade data in pre-consolidated manner. In 
addition, H.R. 4337 would accomplish the following objectives:
     Clarify language in the original 1993 Mod Act and as such, 
is a non-controversial technical corrections bill.
     Eliminate barriers to fully implement the Mod Act of 1993, 
per congressional intent.
     Provide a simplified, optional method for aggregate 
reporting of import data to streamline the business process for both 
importers and the U.S. Government.
     Implement true Customs' ``account management'' and improve 
Customs controls on revenue collection by importer.
     Facilitate modernization under Customs current ACS 
environment and possibly reduce the costs of ACE.
     Create no impediment to Customs' ability to inspect cargo 
or determine admissibility of goods at time of import, prior to release 
into US commerce.
    JCPenney Purchasing Corporation urges Congress to pass this 
legislation so that the Mod Act of 1993 can be fully implemented as 
anticipated to strengthen our economy by providing increased 
efficiencies for Customs and allow importers to comply with US law.

            Sincerely,

                                              Peter McGrath
                                                          President
      

                                


                                       Joint Industry Group
                                       Washington, DC 20006
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Request for Written Comments on H.R. 4337

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    The Joint Industry Group (JIG) appreciates the opportunity to 
comment on this bill to amend the customs laws of the United States 
relating to certain importation procedures. The JIG supports H.R. 4337, 
which will promote full implementation of the Customs Modernization and 
Informed Compliance Act (the ``Mod Act'') and will make other technical 
and conforming amendments to U.S. customs laws.
    JIG is a coalition of more than one hundred and sixty members 
representing Fortune 500 companies, brokers, importers, exporters, 
trade associations, and law firms actively involved in international 
trade. JIG membership represents over $350 billion in annual trade.
    From 1989 to 1993, the JIG led the business community's effort to 
modernize the customs entry process, which culminated in the Mod Act in 
1993. During those four years, the importing community had extensive 
negotiations with Congress and all concerned Executive Branch agencies, 
including the Customs Service and Census Bureau, to insure that the 
legislation reflected a carefully balanced compromise, under which all 
sides would realize some of the improvements for which they had 
bargained.
    In major part, the compromise which was ultimately accepted 
required the trade community to be responsible for the classification 
and valuation of imported merchandise and the exercise of ``reasonable 
care'' in the import process, in exchange for the Government 
streamlining and fully automating the commercial operations of the U.S. 
Customs Service and fully implementing a system of ``informed 
compliance'' to insure that importers are aware of the Customs 
Service's requirements. More than six years later, many of the 
improvements which the trade community bargained for, particularly 
those relating to electronic data transmission and periodic reporting, 
have not been implemented at all, or only partially implemented.
    Sections 1 through 5 of H.R. 4337 are designed to provide a clear 
mandate to the Customs Service to follow through on these long-delayed 
promises and commitments contained in the Mod Act. The remaining 
sections of the bill are technical and conforming amendments that 
address problems that have surfaced during Mod Act implementation.
    H.R. 4337 will promote full implementation of the following modern, 
cost-effective and business-like concepts contained in the Mod Act:

     Filing of essential data for cargo release

    The bill clarifies that upon arrival of goods, only such 
information as is necessary to enable the Customs Service to determine 
whether the goods may be admitted should be required. All other 
information necessary to fix duties, etc., would be provided later 
after release of the goods. The Customs Service enforces myriad laws on 
behalf of other federal agencies regarding the admissibility of goods, 
and the bill does not change existing procedures in that regard, and 
does not restrict Customs' authority to examine goods presented for 
entry into the United States.

     Periodic filing of entry data in aggregate form

    The Mod Act first introduced the concepts of Importer Activity 
Summary Statement (IASS) and Reconciliation. As indicated in the House 
Report on that legislation, Congress clearly contemplated that these 
concepts would permit aggregate, periodic entry data reporting:
        The introduction into the law of two new provisions, the import 
        activity summary statement and the reconciliation, will permit 
        importers and customs brokers which are capable of interacting 
        with Customs in an electronic mode to handle Customs 
        transactions in a more business-like way, reducing paperwork 
        and many of the administrative costs. The import activity 
        summary statement is the electronic transmission, periodically, 
        of the information now contained in individual entry 
        summarieT1. Major U.S. companies will increase their 
        competitiveness through cost reduction by being able to submit 
        information in batch form. House Report 103-361(I)(emphasis 
        added).
    Despite this clear mandate, Customs has never implemented 
IASS. While the agency has implemented Reconciliation, it is 
currently only in prototype form and has proven to be so 
cumbersome and limited as designed by Customs that there is a 
disincentive for importers to use it. H.R. 4337 is intended to 
require Customs to implement the business-like aggregated data 
reporting that Congress and the business community expected via 
the Mod Act.

     Periodic payment of duties, taxes, and fees

    The bill clarifies that, along with aggregate data 
reporting, importers may elect to make payments of duties, 
taxes, and fees on a periodic, aggregate basis. This simply 
delivers on another aspect of IASS that has not been 
implemented at all.
    Taken together, the provisions summarized above would 
further the Mod Act goal of transitioning away from the 
outmoded transaction-based model of customs commercial 
operations to an account-based system. Importantly, H.R. 4337 
would not impede the government's authority and responsibility 
in examination and inspection of goods, and the collection of 
revenue and trade statistics. Other provisions of the bill 
contain technical amendments that we believe are non-
controversial. For these reasons, the JIG supports enactment of 
this proposed legislation.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Ron Schoof
                                     Chairman, Joint Industry Group
      

                                


                                  Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
                                          Washington, DC 20006-2401
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments on H.R. 4337

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    We are writing on behalf of our client, Lands' End, Inc., to 
comment in support of H.R. 4337, which would amend the customs laws 
relating to importation procedures. Lands' End is an importer of 
textiles, apparel and other articles for catalog sales. Lands' End is 
generally in favor of the proposed changes and commends Representative 
Thomas for his sponsorship of this legislation.
    H.R. 4337 would make certain changes that are needed to complete 
the implementation of the 1993 Customs Modernization Act (``Mod Act''). 
While the Mod Act was intended to provide for a shift from entry-by-
entry processing to periodic entry and reconciliation, or an account-
based approach, this objective cannot be successfully achieved without 
the additional amendments provided in H.R. 4337.
    Although we agree with most of the changes proposed in H.R. 4337, 
we do have specific comments with respect to certain sections of the 
proposed bill. Our specific comments are set forth below.

Section 1--

    Section 1(a) of the bill proposes to amend the statute to 
require the submission of minimal documentation to obtain the 
release of merchandise. While we agree with the intent of 
section 1(a), the proposed legislation is ambiguous in 
describing the relevant requirements. The legislation proposes 
amending 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1484 to provide that, at the time of 
entry, the importer need only file such documentation as is 
necessary to enable the Customs Service to determine whether 
the merchandise may be released. It does not specify what 
documentation is required at that point. While it is true that 
the proposed legislation does contain language specifying what 
documentation must be submitted at some point in the entry 
process (either before release or in the entry summary or 
Importer Activity Summary Statement (``IASS'')), it is not 
clear which portion of the documentation is required for 
release and which is required later when the entry summary or 
IASS is filed. It is also unclear what is meant by ``unless the 
Customs Service has granted the importer an alternative means 
to obtain release.''
    As set forth in the bill, the list of documentation 
required to be submitted at some point in the entry process 
would be as follows:

        1. a description of the merchandise;
        2. the classification number for the merchandise (to the sixth 
        digit);
        3. the country of origin; and
        4. other documents required to determine admissibility.

    The requirement that the tariff number be stated to the sixth digit 
before release may not go far enough. Many admissibility decisions 
require classification to the eighth, or even the tenth, digit. Also, 
the list does not include documents necessary to establish a value for 
the merchandise. While we agree that the value of merchandise does not 
generally affect admissibility, in certain situations, where 
classification depends on the unit value of the goods, the absence of 
value information could make it impossible to classify the merchandise.
    The amendments proposed in section 1(b) of the legislation would 
reduce the examination requirements that must be satisfied for release 
of the merchandise. This language does not appear to be completely 
consistent with the language of section 1(a) in that it addresses only 
considerations of health, safety and welfare and the correctness of the 
description and country of origin. The requirement in section 1(a) that 
all information needed to determine admissibility be submitted before 
the merchandise can be released goes further. Admissibility decisions 
can require more than a correct description of the merchandise, a 
correct statement of the country of origin, and evidence that there is 
no threat to health, safety and welfare. For example, admissibility may 
hinge on whether a proper visa has been obtained for quota merchandise.

Section 2--

    We agree with the proposal in section 2 of the bill to 
provide for remote filing of the IASS.

Section 3--

    Section 3 proposes to allow the filing of monthly import 
activity in the form of an IASS containing information totaled 
by tariff number, country of origin and any relevant special 
duty indicators. Any discrepancies between the entry and the 
entry summary or IASS would be treated as clerical errors (in 
the absence of fraud).
    We certainly agree that discrepancies addressed at the time 
of the filing of the entry summary or IASS should be treated as 
clerical errors. However, while we also believe that the 
monthly aggregate statement filing proposed by the bill is a 
step in the right direction, we believe it does not go far 
enough. In effect, the IASS will still be treated like an 
entry. It may still be necessary, at least in some situations, 
to go back to a particular entry or shipment if changes are 
required. For example, an importer may import a single product 
from a single country but from multiple vendors. If a value 
adjustment is needed with respect to only one of the vendors 
and the aggregate reporting method has been used, it may be 
difficult to make the required adjustment.

Section 4--

    We have no objections to or comments on section 4, which 
would require the Customs Service to prescribe an alternative 
mid-point interest methodology in calculating interest due on 
underpayments of duties.

Section 5--

    Section 5 proposes to eliminate the requirement to flag 
entries for reconciliation and provides for reconciliation of 
any information required by subsection (a)(1)(B) of 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1484. We are in favor of this proposal. Under an account-
based approach, it should not be necessary to flag issues at 
the time of entry because corrections are not made on an entry-
by-entry basis. Elimination of the requirement to flag entries 
will allow importers to correct errors, such as quantity 
discrepancies, in situations in which it is not known at the 
time of entry that there may be a problem.
    We are concerned, however, that, based on the language used 
in the proposed legislation, reconciliation may not cover 
classification and country of origin, as these are not 
specifically covered in subsection (a)(1)(B) of 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1484. This confusion arises because, as discussed in our 
comments to section 1 of the bill, it is not clear what 
documents are meant to be covered by proposed subsection 
(a)(1)(A) and which are covered by subsection (a)(1)(B).

Section 6--

    We wholeheartedly agree with the proposal to net and offset 
overpayments and underpayments of duties. The practice now in 
effect is manifestly unfair to importers in that it requires 
the payment to the Customs Service of any additional duties 
due, even after liquidation, but does not allow for the refund 
of overpayments (where liquidation has become final) or the 
netting of overpayments against underpayments. Many clerical 
errors are made by the shipper and cannot be controlled by the 
importer. This proposal would allow the importer to correct 
mistakes without faulting the importer for mistakes it can not 
control.
    We do have some questions with respect to this section of 
the bill, however. The bill does not define ``relevant 
period.'' Also, although we believe the intention is to allow 
importers to net over-and underpayments with respect to all 
products imported during the period, without regard to tariff 
categories or any other criteria, this is not completely clear.
    Finally, because the proposed legislation does not appear 
to provide for refunds from the Customs Service in those 
situations in which the net amount is an overpayment to the 
Customs Service, we do not believe the legislation goes far 
enough. The Customs Service should also be required to pay back 
any excess amounts collected from the importer.

Sections 7--

    We have no comments on sections 7 through 10 of the bill, 
which address related party sales, drawback, instruments of 
international traffic and entireties.
    In sum, on behalf of our client, Lands' End, we support 
H.R. 4337. We believe the legislation would be improved if the 
changes and clarifications described in our specific comments 
were incorporated into the bill. In particular, we believe 
there is a need for clarification with respect to a number of 
the terms used in the legislation.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                            Janet A. Forest
      

                                


Statement by Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, California

    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in 
connection with the April 20 request for public comment by the 
House Committee on Ways and Means regarding the package of 
miscellaneous trade bills being prepared by the committee. 
Mattel strongly supports the inclusion in this package of 
legislation which would make several technical changes to U.S. 
Customs laws. This legislation was introduced by Rep. William 
Thomas as H.R. 4337 on April 13, 2000.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the 
world's largest toy company, with 1999 sales of $5.5 billion in 
over 150 countries. The company has manufacturing, distribution 
and sales operations in the United States and 35 other 
countries, with over 7,700 U.S. employees and a global 
workforce of 31,000.
    Mattel, together with other members of the U.S. Business 
Alliance for Customs Modernization (BACM), strongly supports 
H.R. 4337 in order to effect full implementation of the 1993 
Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act (``the Mod 
Act''). Despite enactment of the Mod Act in December 1993, 
implementation of the law by Customs has been slow and often 
selective. Of particular concern, the burden for compliance has 
been shifted from Customs to the importing community without 
delivery of the promised administrative efficiencies to reduce 
both public and private sector costs.
    The purpose of H.R. 4337 is to promote modern, cost-
effective compliance with import laws. As U.S. duty rates 
decline, U.S. companies are being forced to commit large 
resources to build systems and implement procedures to manage 
import compliance. Having delivered on this responsibility 
required under the Mod Act, the trade community asks Congress 
to deliver on its promise to replace the transaction-by-
transaction entry process established in 1789 with an account-
based option for periodic aggregate filing of import data and 
payment of duties and fees.
    The enactment of H.R. 4337 would remedy the unbalanced 
implementation of the Mod Act, reduce the drain on Customs 
resources and facilitate importer compliance. The bill is 
revenue neutral and will meet or exceed Bureau of Statistics 
reporting requirements, while providing more accurate trade 
data in a pre-consolidated manner.
    For the foregoing reasons, Mattel strongly supports the 
Customs entry changes proposed in H.R. 4337 and urges that this 
legislation be included in the miscellaneous trade package 
being prepared by the Committee on Ways & Means. Please feel 
free to contact us should the Committee have any questions 
regarding this matter.

            Respectfully submitted,

                                       Thomas F. St. Maxens
      

                                


                      National Association of Manufacturers
                                  Washington, DC 20004-1790
                                                       May 19, 2000

 A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Request for Written Comments on H.R. 4337

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on proposed technical corrections to U.S. trade 
laws and miscellaneous duty suspensions. On behalf of NAM, I am writing 
to express support for H.R. 4337, which will ensure full implementation 
of the 1993 Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act (the 
``ModAct'').
    As a result of the legislation, the following procedures will be 
made available that will both modernize the import process and ensure 
cost-effective compliance with import laws:

     Filing of essential data for cargo release.

    Only such information as is necessary to enable the Customs Service 
to make admissibility and release decisions should be required. H.R. 
4337 delineates the types of information that ordinarily would be 
required at the time of entry. The Customs Service retains the right to 
seek additional information insofar as the additional information 
relates to whether the goods may be refused entry into the U.S.

     Periodic filing of aggregate import data.

    The law will provide an optional periodic method for aggregate 
reporting of import data, which should result in a streamlined process 
for both importers and the U.S. government. By moving from a 
transaction-based to an account-based system, the Customs Service will 
be able to free additional resources directed to the protection of U.S. 
borders.

     Periodic payment of duties, taxes and fees.

    This provision simply delivers on the ``ModAct'' promise of a 
modern, account-based system that augments current import requirements.
    These are just some of the improvements and clarifications 
introduced by H.R. 4337. We are confident that they will result in a 
more modern, efficient customs process, improved trade data and 
enhanced compliance--goals which we share with the U.S. government.

            Sincerely,

                                                Frank Vargo
                                                     Vice President
      

                                


                         National Customs Brokers &        
                          Forwarders Association of America
                                       Washington, DC 20036
                                                       May 17, 2000

The Honorable Philip Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Crane:
    The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America 
(NCBFAA) appreciates the opportunity to provide our views on 
miscellaneous tariff proposals now open to public comment. We are 
particularly interested in H.R. 4337, sponsored by Mr. Thomas and 
supported by the Business Alliance for Customs Modernization (BACM).
    NCBFAA is on record as supporting the general direction of this 
legislation. We believe that fundamental changes can indeed be made to 
the customs entry process and we have supported BACM's initiatives in 
this regard. It is important to understand that theirs are the 
interests of the twenty largest, most reputable importers/exporters in 
the United States. They have large numbers of transactions, shipping 
large volumes of merchandise throughout the world and, in many 
instances, deal extensively with related parties. Global commerce 
demands that Customs operations become transparent and do not 
constitute further hurdles to a company's logistics flow. Thus, there 
is, in H.R. 4337, a statutory recognition of a ``Track IV'' concept 
that would permit Customs to design processes tailored to the unique 
circumstance of these largest importers/exporters.
    Simultaneously though, it is also incumbent on the Congress to look 
for ways to streamline the entry process for the remaining 80% of the 
entries and 98+% of importers. Small and medium-sized companies are the 
engine of international commerce and arguably are in even more need of 
avoiding the delays and expense consequent to traditional Customs 
processes. Thus, in addition to changes accommodating the largest 
importers, we offer the following concepts that should be included in 
any discussion of reforming Customs procedures.
    1. A new money management system for Tracks I, II & III. In our 
meetings, Customs has correctly pointed out that payment of duties and 
other collections on a transaction-by-transaction basis is inefficient 
from both Customs' and the importer's perspective. They create 
analogies to the income tax payment system and the commercial credit 
card system whereby payment is handled separate from the transaction 
and accumulated in some fashion that permits periodic payment without 
loss of revenue to the government.
    In reviewing Customs' proposal, NCBFAA favors a business account 
statement approach presently used by most businesses for acquisitions 
of both hard goods and services. Such an approach would permit the 
importer and/or his broker to manage the statement--both its credits 
and debits--using the importer IRS number as the identifier. Payment or 
refunds would be made at any juncture, based on the importer's business 
practices and the establishment of a reasonable time for a lump sum 
payment of duties.
    In advancing the concept of a money management system, the 
government clearly recognizes the savings that an accumulated 
transaction approach can offer. The challenge ahead will be to 
establish revenue neutrality and promote cash flow without imposing 
interest for accounts paid within a reasonable period. Interest is not 
levied today on routine transactions and would not be supportable for a 
new money management system. NCBFAA therefore proposes the model now 
employed by the government in collecting IRS taxes on distilled 
spirits, beer and wine. Here, entries released in a given month are due 
and payable by the 15th of the following month.
    We believe that separating data from revenue has many compelling 
advantages. It is important that any approach be simple and easy to 
administer. We know that the existing system of convoluted interest 
calculations is unpopular and counterproductive. NCBFAA is willing to 
work with the Congress, and, in turn, the Customs Service to develop a 
practical alternative
    2. Establish a ``corrective period'' and eliminate 
``reconciliation'' for the vast majority of filers for other than Track 
IV filers.
    Implicit in the reconciliation process, now existing at Customs, is 
the recognition that errors occur and their correction should be 
encouraged. Reconciliation was a step in that direction, but it has 
become unworkable for the importing public and for Customs. A primary 
source of its fallibility is the requirement that importers, 
contemporaneous to filing the entry, ``flag'' that entry for possible 
subsequent revision. This simply does not work. A better approach, we 
think, is to extend the statutory liquidation period to 18 months after 
entry. During that period, an importer may electronically correct the 
entry summary and apply any duties, fees, interest or refunds to his 
statement. Everyone benefits when good faith errors are corrected and 
adjustments are made voluntarily. It would also dramatically reduce 
personnel demands on Customs.
    NCBFAA welcomes the idea of an electronic entry correction period, 
reasonably for the 18 month period after the entry summary is filed. 
During this timeframe, an importer or his broker can revise the record 
relating to a particular entry and make the necessary adjustments 
required by Customs. This would dramatically reduce personnel demands 
on Customs over the existing reconciliation system (e.g. eliminating 
SILs and the consequent Customs input of entry corrections). Finally, 
we believe strongly that, in the context of these reforms, the concept 
of liquidation, and the finality it achieves, must be retained.
          * * * * 
    NCBFAA makes these comments in anticipation of a formal review by 
the Committee as it proceeds with this legislation. We look forward to 
further presenting our views.

            Sincerely,

    Peter H. Powell, Sr.
    President

    cc: The Honorable Bill Thomas
      

                                


                             Sony Electronics Incorporation
                          Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656-8003
                                                       May 16, 2000

A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: HR 4337--To Amend The Customs Laws

Dear Chairman Archer:
    Sony Electronics Inc. is writing to request your full support for 
HR 4337, a bill to modernize and simplify customs processes, as 
intended by the 1993 Customs Mod Act. Current customs processes are 
mired in arcane and antiquated procedures. In many ways, we are 
operating as if we were still in the 19th century. Even as duty rates 
decline, our company is expending ever-increasing amounts on 
inefficient transaction-by-transaction customs administration. It is a 
drag on business and creates unnecessary costs for purchasers and 
consumers.
    HR 4337 will create an unambiguous mandate for efficient account-
based processing options. While leaving the right of the Customs 
Service to inspect inbound cargo untouched, it will allow certain 
information to be compiled and submitted on a periodic, consolidated 
basis, the same way that businesses operate.
    Supporters of HR 4337 have made an utterly stunning and incisive 
observation. Current customs regulations are the equivalent of 
requiring a retail merchant to report sales tax transactions for each 
sale instead of on an aggregate basis. Further, that merchant would 
have to accurately report quantities and values before ever having the 
opportunity to take count.
    With the passage of HR 4337, we can rectify the situation described 
above. Importers have already taken on new and additional 
responsibilities, some formerly the exclusive province of Customs. For 
example, under the Mod Act, we became responsible for using reasonable 
care to appraise and classify merchandise. We also became subject to 
significant new penalties for violations. Yet, we have not obtained the 
quid-pro-quo for the numerous burdens undertaken.
    HR 4337 is the mechanism to fulfill the promise of the Mod Act. We 
ask you to support it as a means to fair and modernized customs 
processes.

            Sincerely,

                                            Frank M. Lesher
      

                                


                             Stewart and Stewart Law Office
                                       Washington, DC 20037
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 4337--Comments of The Timken Company

    Dear Mr. Singleton:
    The Timken Company appreciates the opportunity to submit comments 
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
regarding H.R. 4337, which would amend U.S. customs laws relating to 
import procedures.\1\ As a domestic industry that has used the unfair 
trade laws, The Timken Company is concerned that changes proposed to 
customs laws in H.R. 4337 not undermine the effectiveness of 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws and other import relief laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Advisory from the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee 
on Trade, No. TR-20, April 20, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted below, The Timken Company would like to see H.R. 4337 
amended (1) to provide for the notation of antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders or any other trade law relief measures at 
time of entry and in import activity summary statements and (2) to 
bring the language of H.R. 4337 regarding transaction values of 
imported merchandise more closely in line with current law.

I. Notation of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Orders at 
Time of Entry and in Import Activity Summary Statements

    The Timken Company understands that the purpose of H.R. 
4337 is to streamline and simplify filing procedures for 
importers. Accordingly, the bill calls for the filing of 
minimal information by importers at the time of entry. H.R. 
4337 at Section 1(a)(2)(C) would require that importers provide 
the Customs Service upon entry a description of the 
merchandise, the merchandise's tariff classification, its 
country of origin, and admissibility documentation.
    H.R. 4337 also provides for minimal reporting of 
information in import activity summary statements. Under 
Sections 3(a)(2) and (c) of the bill, importers would report 
tariff numbers, countries of origin, and special program 
indicators, e.g., GSP, on these statements.
    Under existing law, importers of merchandise subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders are required to make 
deposits of estimated special duties upon entry.\2\ As this 
requirement will continue under H.R. 4337, the Customs Service 
should ensure that any new forms or streamlined procedures 
maintain the present system for ensuring compliance with the 
requirements: importers have to indicate on their entry forms 
that their merchandise is subject to an order and make special 
duty deposits at the time of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1671e(a)(3) and 1673e(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Timken Company respectfully requests that H.R. 4337 be 
amended to require that importers note at time of entry and in 
importer activity summary statements whether the reported 
merchandise is subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty 
order or any other trade law relief measures. The Timken 
Company is concerned that, through the streamlined process 
proposed in H.R. 4337, the Customs Service may in some cases be 
unaware as to whether imported products are subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders or other trade law 
relief measures. This circumstance could result in the Customs 
Service inadvertently failing to suspend liquidation on some 
entries. Such a situation could be obviated, however, if 
Customs were put on notice at time of entry or through importer 
activity summary statements whether imported merchandise is 
subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders or other 
trade law relief measures.

II. Transaction Values of Imported Merchandise

    The Timken Company is concerned about variances of language 
in H.R. 4337 with current law pertaining to circumstances of 
sale that may be considered in determining whether 
``transaction values'' may be used in related party import 
transactions.\3\ Section 7 of H.R. 4337 states

    \3\ Please note that H.R. 4337 refers to ``19 U.S.C. 1401(b)(2).'' 
The Timken Company believes that the bill was intended to read ``19 
U.S.C. 1401a(b)(2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In determining whether the circumstances of the sale of the 
        imported merchandise indicate that the relationship between the 
        buyer and seller did not influence the price actually paid or 
        payable, there shall be taken into account other sales during a 
        representative timeframe in the normal course of trade in 
        merchandise of the same class or kind.

    The Timken Company has two specific concerns regarding this 
language. First, the language ``merchandise of the same class 
or kind'' in Section 7 is significantly broader than current 
law regarding transaction values between related buyers and 
sellers. Current law, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401a(b)(2)(B)(i), 
compares the transaction value of imported merchandise and the 
transaction value of ``identical merchandise, or of similar 
merchandise.'' The more specific language of the current law 
provides for closer comparisons between merchandise and is thus 
viewed by The Timken Company as preferable.
    Second, Section 7 of H.R. 4337 does not require that sales 
be ``to unrelated buyers in the United States'' as does 19 
U.S.C. Sec.  1401a(b)(2)(B)(i). The Timken Company is concerned 
that the absence of this language in H.R. 4337 could lower the 
standard for determining the acceptability of ``transaction 
values'' in related party transactions.
    Accordingly, The Timken Company respectfully requests that 
Section 7 of H.R. 4337 be amended, first, to replace 
``merchandise of the same class or kind'' with ``identical 
merchandise, or of similar merchandise,'' and second, to add 
``to unrelated buyers in the United States'' at the end of 
Section 7.

III. Conclusion

    The Timken Company would be pleased to participate further 
in the development of H.R. 4337. If you have any questions 
regarding The Timken Company's position on this legislation, we 
may be reached at (202) 785-4185.

            Sincerely,

                                         Terence P. Stewart
                                         William A. Fennell
                                          David S. Johanson
                                                 Special Counsel to
                                                 The Timken Company
      

                                


                             Stewart and Stewart Law Office
                                       Washington, DC 20037
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 4337--Comments of the Torrington Company

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    The Torrington Company appreciates the opportunity to submit 
comments to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives regarding H.R. 4337, which would amend U.S. customs 
laws relating to import procedures.\1\ As a domestic industry that has 
used to the unfair trade laws, the Torrington Company is concerned that 
changes proposed to customs laws in H.R. 4337 not undermine the 
effectiveness of antidumping and countervailing duty laws and other 
import relief laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Advisory from the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee 
on Trade, No. TR-20, April 20, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted below, the Torrington Company would like to see H.R. 4337 
amended (1) to provide for the notation of antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders or any other trade law relief measures at 
time of entry and in import activity summary statements and (2) to 
bring the language of H.R. 4337 regarding transaction values of 
imported merchandise more closely in line with current law.

I. Notation of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Orders at 
Time of Entry and in Import Activity Summary Statements

    The Torrington Company understands that the purpose of H.R. 
4337 is to streamline and simplify filing procedures for 
importers. Accordingly, the bill calls for the filing of 
minimal information by importers at the time of entry. H.R. 
4337 at Section 1(a)(2)(C) would require that importers provide 
the Customs Service upon entry a description of the 
merchandise, the merchandise's tariff classification, its 
country of origin, and admissibility documentation.
    H.R. 4337 also provides for minimal reporting of 
information in import activity summary statements. Under 
Sections 3(a)(2) and (c) of the bill, importers would report 
tariff numbers, countries of origin, and special program 
indicators, e.g., GSP, on these statements.
    Under existing law, importers of merchandise subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders are required to make 
deposits of estimated special duties upon entry.\2\ As this 
requirement will continue under H.R. 4337, the Customs Service 
should ensure that any new forms or streamlined procedures 
maintain the present system for ensuring compliance with the 
requirements: importers have to indicate on their entry forms 
that their merchandise is subject to an order and make special 
duty deposits at the time of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1671e(a)(3) and 1673e(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Torrington Company respectfully requests that H.R. 4337 
be amended to require that importers note at time of entry and 
in importer activity summary statements whether the reported 
merchandise is subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty 
order or any other trade law relief measures. The Torrington 
Company is concerned that, through the streamlined process 
proposed in H.R. 4337, the Customs Service may in some cases be 
unaware as to whether imported products are subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders or other trade law 
relief measures. This circumstance could result in the Customs 
Service inadvertently failing to suspend liquidation on some 
entries. Such a situation could be obviated, however, if 
Customs were put on notice at time of entry or through importer 
activity summary statements whether imported merchandise is 
subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders or other 
trade law relief measures.

II. Transaction Values of Imported Merchandise

    The Torrington Company is concerned about variances of 
language in H.R. 4337 with current law pertaining to 
circumstances of sale that may be considered in determining 
whether ``transaction values'' may be used in related party 
import transactions.\3\ Section 7 of H.R. 4337 states

    \3\ Please note that H.R. 4337 refers to ``19 U.S.C. 1401(b)(2).'' 
The Torrington Company believes that the bill was intended to read ``19 
U.S.C. 1401a(b)(2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In determining whether the circumstances of the sale of the 
        imported merchandise indicate that the relationship between the 
        buyer and seller did not influence the price actually paid or 
        payable, there shall be taken into account other sales during a 
        representative timeframe in the normal course of trade in 
        merchandise of the same class or kind.

    The Torrington Company has two specific concerns regarding 
this language. First, the language ``merchandise of the same 
class or kind'' in Section 7 is significantly broader than 
current law regarding transaction values between related buyers 
and sellers. Current law, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1401a(b)(2)(B)(i), 
compares the transaction value of imported merchandise and the 
transaction value of ``identical merchandise, or of similar 
merchandise.'' The more specific language of the current law 
provides for closer comparisons between merchandise and is thus 
viewed by the Torrington Company as preferable.
    Second, Section 7 of H.R. 4337 does not require that sales 
be ``to unrelated buyers in the United States'' as does 19 
U.S.C. Sec. 1401a(b)(2)(B)(i). The Torrington Company is 
concerned that the absence of this language in H.R. 4337 could 
lower the standard for determining the acceptability of 
``transaction values'' in related party transactions.
    Accordingly, the Torrington Company respectfully requests 
that Section 7 of H.R. 4337 be amended, first, to replace 
``merchandise of the same class or kind'' with ``identical 
merchandise, or of similar merchandise,'' and second, to add 
``to unrelated buyers in the United States'' at the end of 
Section 7.

III. Conclusion

    The Torrington Company would be pleased to participate 
further in the development of H.R. 4337. If you have any 
questions regarding the Torrington Company's position on this 
legislation, we may be reached at (202) 785-4185.

            Sincerely,

                                         Terence P. Stewart
                                                    Wesley K. Caine
                                                     Geert De Prest
                                                  David S. Johanson
                                                 Special Counsel to
                                             The Torrington Company
      

                                


                                 Sharretts, Paley, Carter &
                                             Blauvelt, P.C.
                                       Washington, DC 20036
                                                       May 19, 2000

Mr. A. L. Singleton
Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Request for Written Comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

Dear Mr. Singleton:
    The Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc. (TMA) wishes to express its 
support for passage of H.R. 4337 as a crucial part of this year's 
technical corrections and miscellaneous duty suspension legislation. 
TMA, founded in 1916, is a New York based non-profit trade organization 
of 290 member companies involved in toys, dolls, games, holiday 
decorations and related products. TMA member companies account for 
approximately 85% of the $20 billion of toys sold in the United States 
annually. TMA member companies include multi-national corporations, 
small family owned businesses, manufacturers, design firms, 
professional inventors and toy testing companies.
    TMA supports H.R. 4337 because it will promote up-to-date and cost 
effective compliance with US import laws. The Customs Mod Act, which 
was passed in 1993, was toted as legislation, which would deliver 
significant administrative benefits to the importing community. It has 
not lived up to its advance billing. Although duties have been 
eliminated for most products imported by TMA member companies, many toy 
industry participants find that they are still spending 
disproportionate resources on Customs compliance. Enactment of H.R. 
4337 will allow for a fuller implementation of the Mod Act, as 
originally intended by Congress. It will allow for simplified aggregate 
reporting of import data. It will allow Customs to implement a true 
``Account Management System.'' It will facilitate modernization under 
the ACS environment, and probably reduce the cost of implementing ACE. 
It will accomplish these goals without impeding the ability of Customs 
to inspect incoming cargo and determine its admissibility. Finally, 
H.R. 4337 is revenue neutral.
    In light of the above, TMA urges that Congress enact H.R. 4337 as 
part of this year's technical corrections and miscellaneous duty 
suspensions legislation. If you have any questions regarding this 
submission, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

            Very truly yours.

                                             M. Barry Levy,
                                                  Trade Counsel for
                                 Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc.

    cc: David A. Miller, President, TMA
      

                                


                                 U.S. Business Alliance for
                                      Customs Modernization
                                                       May 19, 2000

The Honorable Bill Archer Chairman,
House Ways and Means Committee
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4307

The Honorable Philip M. Crane Chairman,
House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1308

Re: H.R. 4337

Dear Chairman Archer and Chairman Crane:
    This letter is submitted in strong support of H.R. 4337 by the U.S. 
Business Alliance for Customs Modernization (``BACM''). BACM includes 
companies that span the major industrial sectors. For example, in the 
automotive sector, BACM includes General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, 
American Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. In the computer, electronics and 
telecommunications sector, BACM includes Hewlett Packard, Compaq, Sony 
Electronics, General Electric and Nortel Networks. In the retail 
sector, BACM includes Sears, J.C. Penney Co., Mattel, Target 
Corporation, and Wal-Mart. In agribusiness, BACM includes Sara Lee and 
Pillsbury. In petroleum and chemicals, BACM includes BP-Amoco and 
DuPont.
    Each of our member companies depends upon the smooth and efficient 
administration of the customs laws and regulations in order to run its 
business. Each of our member companies has extensive experience in 
dealing with the import process and interfacing with the United States 
Customs Service. Therefore, BACM and its member companies are uniquely 
well-qualified to comment upon H.R. 4337, which proposes changes to the 
customs entry process.
    BACM fully supports the provisions in H.R. 4337 that seek to 
complete implementation of the unfulfilled promises of the 1993 Customs 
Mod Act. For convenience, we attach a ``Statement of Purpose'' that 
explains each section of the bill in detail. H.R. 4337 would allow for 
true account-based processing and customs administration that is 
consistent, reasonable and efficient. It would make customs 
transactions more businesslike, thus reducing unnecessary work and 
administrative costs.
    Most important, H.R. 4337 would ensure that the Customs Service 
implement the mandate in the Mod Act to allow for ``account-based'' 
processing, including the importer activity summary statement or IASS. 
Although the Congress intended that importers be given the option to 
report import information to the Customs Service in an aggregate and 
periodic form using the IASS procedures, the Customs Service has 
utterly failed to implement this mandate. The provisions in H.R. 4337 
would make it clear to the Customs Service that it cannot continue to 
disregard and ignore the intent of Congress, and that it must implement 
all provisions of the Customs Mod Act.
    In addition, H.R. 4337 would make clear that at the time of import, 
an importer should be required to report only that information 
necessary to confirm that the goods may properly enter the U.S. 
commerce. This requirement would in no way decrease or otherwise limit 
the responsibility and authority of the Customs Service to inspect 
merchandise that arrives at our nation's borders. However, it would 
allow the Customs Service to focus its resources more effectively on 
identifying those shipments of merchandise that should be denied entry 
into the United States. At this point in the entry process, issues that 
do not affect admissibility (such as value) can be deferred without 
risking the revenue, security or national interests of the United 
States.
    The member companies of BACM strongly support H.R. 4337, and we 
greatly appreciate your active support and co-sponsorship of this 
important legislation. Please call me at 858-942-2441 if you have any 
questions or need additional information.

            Sincerely,

                                          James P. Finnegan
                                                        Chairperson

Year 2000 Customs Trade Legislation

                          Statement of Purpose

    The purpose of the Year 2000 Customs Trade Legislation is 
to help fulfill the 1993 Customs Mod Act mandate that customs 
commercial operations be modernized and simplified.
    From its very earliest days, the Customs Service's 
commercial operations process has been transaction-based. This 
means that all of the information necessary to appraise and 
classify imported goods has been collected on an entry-by-entry 
(shipment-by-shipment) basis. For the companies that conduct 
the majority of trade into the U.S., tens of thousands of entry 
summaries must be filed yearly covering each discrete import 
shipment.
    The Customs Service's treatment of these individual 
declarations does not take into full consideration the totality 
or context of the importer's business. Moreover, under this 
antiquated system, importers are required to file data before 
they have had any reasonable opportunity to confirm and 
reconcile the required information. In many ways, it is the 
equivalent of requiring a retail merchant to report sales taxes 
for each sale instead of on a periodic consolidated basis. The 
net result is that despite declining duty rates, businesses are 
spending ever-increasing amounts, and devoting more and more 
corporate resources, on customs compliance and administration.
    The Mod Act was intended to remedy the entry-by-entry 
operations problem by providing importers with access to 
account-based processing. In exchange for agreeing to new civil 
penalties and accepting responsibility for the classification 
and appraisement of imported merchandise (which was formerly 
the exclusive responsibility of the Customs Service), the trade 
community was to gain periodic entry (in the form of an 
``import activity summary statement''), the ability to 
``reconcile'' (or adjust) import information, faster release, 
remote filing and other programs. Notwithstanding the expressed 
intent of the Congress in the Mod Act, the Customs Service's 
commercial operations remain transaction-based. Some Mod Act 
programs have never been implemented. Others have been subject 
to only limited, prototype implementation.
    Although Mod Act implementation has been hampered by 
obstacles associated with the Customs Service's antiquated 
computer system, a new system alone will not address industry's 
concerns about the stalled modernization effort. The Customs 
Service's public notices and pronouncements about future plans 
(e.g., Entry Revision Project (``ERP'')) continue to limit the 
benefits of the Mod Act bargain. The present legislation is 
intended to dispel any lingering ambiguity about what the Mod 
Act provided. It will supply the Customs Service with a clear 
mandate to implement efficient account-based processing 
options.
    As a benefit, this legislation will free the Customs 
Service and the trade community from cumbersome and inefficient 
procedures. It will enable Customs to redirect more effort to 
the protection of the country's borders. As an additional 
benefit, the collection of trade statistics will be enhanced 
because importers will be able to file monthly-consolidated 
information maintained in the ordinary course of business, 
which will insure the greatest possible statistical accuracy.
    The provisions of this legislation are intended to clarify 
the additional importer options for commercial operations 
processing intended by the Congress in the Mod Act. However, 
this legislation does not alter or restrict the availability of 
current ``entry/entry summary'' procedures.
    A summary of each provision of the bill is attached hereto.

 Section 1. Minimal Data Required to Release Imported Merchandise From 
                            Customs Custody

    The trade community fully acknowledges and supports the 
mission of the Customs Service to prevent the introduction into 
U.S. commerce of dangerous and harmful goods. However, this 
mission is separate from and should not be confused with the 
collection of revenue and the administration of the customs 
laws in general. The government should not require commercial 
importers to present more information at the time of 
importation than is necessary to determine whether merchandise 
should be released from Customs' custody. All other information 
can be presented at a later time. Section 1(a) of the bill 
delineates the types of information that would ordinarily be 
required at the time of entry. At the same time, it preserves 
the Customs Service's right to seek additional information 
about any particular shipment, but only insofar as the 
additional information relates to whether the goods may be 
refused entry into the U.S.
    Section 1(b) also amends the law to delineate the proper 
subjects of import examinations. Inspections of merchandise 
should not be used as a punitive enforcement measure. For 
example, a Customs Service determination that an importer has 
failed to correctly report dutiable value should not result in 
increased examinations, because inspections of merchandise are 
not able to yield information about whether the importer has 
paid the agreed upon price. On the other hand, the bill 
envisions that the Customs Service will continue unimpeded in 
its right to examine imports to determine admissibility and to 
enforce all laws for which the physical inspection of the 
merchandise is relevant and material. For example, it may 
properly inspect the merchandise to determine whether it is 
properly marked, subject to antidumping, visa or other 
requirements. Section 1(c) conforms the definition of 
``electronic entry'' to the information necessary to determine 
whether an examination must be conducted by Customs.

                        Section 2. Remote Filing

    The following section of this bill, Section 3, clarifies 
that importers will have an option to file one import activity 
summary statement (``IASS'') per month in lieu of entry 
summaries for each individual transaction, as currently 
required by the Customs Service. Section 2 amends the Mod Act 
``remote location filing'' section to conform with this option. 
Remote filing currently contemplates the filing of an 
electronic entry summary, but not the filing of an IASS. 
Section 2 remedies this by establishing that remote filing 
depends upon the capability to file either the entry summary or 
the IASS electronically.

      Section 3. Importer Activity Summary Statement Clarification

    The Mod Act defined the ``import activity summary 
statement'' (``IASS'') as the periodic transmission of data or 
information which enables Customs to assess duties, taxes and 
fees on merchandise imported during that period, collect 
accurate trade statistics and determine whether other 
applicable legal requirements are met. See 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1401(r). The Act further provided in amended 
Sec. 1484(a)(2)(A) that the IASS would cover entries made 
during the calendar month and would be filed no later than the 
20th day of the following month. The purpose was to permit 
importers ``to handle Customs transactions in a more business-
like way, reducing paperwork and many of the administrative 
costs. The import activity summary statement is the electronic 
transmission, periodically, of the information now contained in 
individual entry summaries. Major U.S. companies will increase 
their competitiveness through cost reduction by being able to 
submit information in batch form.'' H.R. Rep. No. 103-361 
(1993).
    Despite this clear mandate, importers have never seen the 
IASS implemented and must continue to file all import 
information on an individual entry basis. Further, because 
importers are unable to compile, verify and batch their import 
information, each discrete transaction must be reported with 
100% accuracy within ten business days of entry. Failure to do 
so can result in penalties and/or adverse audit findings upon 
later discovery of variances. This process is directly contrary 
to business accounting processes, whereby data is subject to 
validation, a monthly accounting close process and reporting. 
In business, individual variances are often offset and records 
will reflect the 100% accurate net activity for the period.
    The Customs Service's current transaction-based approach 
skews results. For example, from time-to-time all commercial 
invoices for imports are subject to manual keying errors. On 
one shipment during the month certain data may be over 
reported, in another shipment of the merchandise it may be 
underreported. The two transactions may cancel each other out 
entirely, and the net result will be correctly reflected in the 
records. For the Customs Service's purposes, however, each 
transaction is errant, no matter the end result. This is 
completely antithetical to an account-based approach.
    The proposed legislation will clarify that an importer has 
the right to declare its information either using the current 
individual entry summary system or by filing a monthly IASS. As 
a practical matter, the IASS will resemble an individual entry 
summary, except that it will contain aggregate information for 
the entire month. Thus, for example, suppose an importer now 
files 30 entry summaries per month, each one for imports of 
Products A, B and C. The IASS will also entail three line 
items, but with totals for A, B and C for the entire month.
    The proposed Section 3, will, in main part, permit the 
importer to segregate and total the information by tariff 
number, country of origin and special program indicator (e.g., 
GSP), the same way now permitted for entry summaries. See 
Subsection (a)(2). Thus, the importer will be responsible for 
using reasonable care to present correct monthly data, and 
(absent fraud) individual shipment variances will be 
disregarded. Pursuant to subsection (c), importers would not 
have to list the activity for each and every entry during the 
month, which could overload the Customs Service system with an 
excessively large number of data lines, all at once. Finally, 
the IASS would be treated just like any other entry summary for 
purposes of administration of the customs laws, including the 
payment of duties, taxes, fees and drawback.
    The Customs Service has refused to implement the IASS, 
instead opting merely for periodic payment proposals and most 
recently, periodic entry follow-up with full detailed entry-by-
entry data. Any proposal that stops short of the business-like 
ability to consolidate and report data periodically fails to 
truly modernize customs practices in the manner intended by 
Congress.

                     Section 4. Mid-Point Interest

    This section re-authorizes mid-point interest, first 
established as part of Pub. L. 106-36. The purpose is to 
authorize a means of collecting interest on duty underpayments 
without having to resort to entry-by-entry calculation, 
consistent with the overall goals of this bill.

            Section 5. Reconciliation Changes/Clarification

    Reconciliation is the means to later report information 
relating to imports that is undetermined at the time the entry 
summary or IASS is filed. The problem for importers and the 
Customs Service is that Customs requires the reconciliation to 
be connected to individual entries by means of a ``flag'' in 
Customs' automated system. This is the same transaction-based 
approach that has created huge burdens for Customs and the 
trade community. In keeping with the spirit of the Mod Act, 
Section 5(1) of the bill would eliminate the requirement that 
each entry be flagged for reconciliation. The underlying 
premise is that import information is presumptively correctable 
via a reconciliation. For example, the actual quantity of goods 
imported is never known for sure until the merchandise is 
physically received and counted. This may occur long after 
entry. Subsection (2) would allow elements such as quantity to 
be reconciled.

                   Section 6. Netting and Offsetting

    Section 6(1) of the bill reaffirms that importers should be 
encouraged to file the best, most accurate information with 
Customs, even if the foreign shipper makes clerical errors in 
the preparation of the shipping information. As previously 
stated with respect to the IASS and reconciliation, in general, 
periodic summary statements and adjustments filed via 
reconciliation are geared to allowing the importer to rely on 
its own business accounting records, verified and recorded 
pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. This 
contrasts with current Customs requirements, which force 
importers to rely upon the shipper's untested information 
(e.g., commercial invoice information), which accompanies 
shipments for export to the U.S.
    The idea that importers be able to use their own accounting 
information is consistent with the Mod Act, which placed 
responsibility on importers to use reasonable care. Reasonable 
care requires diligence with respect to information and records 
under the importer's control. On the other hand, the importer 
cannot control whether clerical errors are made with respect to 
information prepared by the foreign shipper.
    For example, following importation the importer will gather 
within its accounting system the total quantity imported and 
the amount paid to the foreign seller. Permitted time to 
compile this information, the importer will report it to 
Customs, in reliance on its own records, instead of using a 
best estimate based on information contained in unverified 
commercial shipping documents prepared by the shipper. If the 
importer correctly reports quantities and values in its entry 
summary, IASS and/or reconciliation, the importer should not be 
faulted for clerical errors made by the shipper in preparing 
the shipping information, as the latter was not under the 
importer's control. Therefore, variances in the shipping 
information from the correct information presented by the 
importer to Customs should be considered clerical errors, 
absent intent to misuse or misrepresent the shipping 
information in a fraudulent manner. Section 6(1) of the bill 
accomplishes this purpose.
    Section 6(2) recognizes that within an account-based 
approach, individual transactions that cancel each other out 
should not be recognized for Customs' enforcement. Rather, only 
the net variances (e.g., the net amount of unreported value) 
should count against the importer. Finally, Section 6(3) allows 
importers to offset duty overpayments against underpayments for 
purposes of Customs enforcement actions and prior disclosures. 
It is fundamentally unfair for duty collection to be 
exclusively one-sided in favor of the Customs Service.

                    Section 7. Circumstances of Sale

    In transactions between related parties, the price will not 
be used if it is determined, by an examination of the 
circumstances surrounding the sale, that the relationship of 
the parties affects the price. In making this determination, 
the Customs Service now views individual U.S. import prices in 
isolation. A finding that one or two transactions are affected 
in this manner can result in a prohibition against the importer 
using Transaction Value (price paid or payable) for all of its 
imports. In keeping with the account-based approach of this 
bill, the Customs Service would be required to make sure that 
the circumstances of sale are examined for a representative 
period. Section 7 would prevent aberrations from being used to 
disqualify price-based Transaction Value.

                    Section 8. Destruction Drawback

    The first provision conforms the statute to the current 
Customs regulations and practice by allowing destruction within 
the same timeframe as exportation. The second provision is 
dedicated exclusively to promoting environmentally sound 
disposition of duty drawback eligible product. At present, 
drawback is allowed on products that are exported or destroyed, 
provided that the destruction does not result in residual 
commercial value. Recycling and other ecologically sound 
processes usually yield some valuable waste, resulting in 
drawback forfeiture. Rather than lose drawback, many claimants 
export the products overseas where there may not be 
environmentally sensitive disposal procedures. This provision 
would eliminate the recycling disincentive by allowing drawback 
where there is valuable waste. However, the drawback available 
to the claimant would be reduced to account for the residual 
commercial value. This would align the claim process with the 
current practice for valuable waste in manufacturing drawback 
claims.

            Section 9. Instruments of International Traffic

    Instruments of International Traffic (``IIT's'') are 
containers and shipping devices that are not imported into the 
U.S. as articles of commerce. Rather, they are intended to 
continue in use in international traffic. The problem is that 
these items, which include racks and boxes, are widely 
dispersed and nearly impossible to track in order to prove that 
they have not been removed from international traffic. This 
section is intended to remedy the tracking problem by 
subjecting them to the exclusions contained in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedules of the United States.

                         Section 10. Entireties

    Importers of factory lines and other production equipment 
are faced with a very unique problem. In many instances the 
machinery is simply too large to be placed in one shipment. In 
such cases, the shippers have to break down the equipment into 
manageable sections or parts. When imported separately into the 
U.S., the Customs Service treats the equipment as discrete 
goods instead of as one entirety. Thus, instead of one 
classification under one entry summary line item, hundreds of 
classifications and line items in multiple entries may have to 
be used. Further aggravating the situation is that any post-
importation adjustments to dutiable value of the machinery have 
to be allocated proportionately to the individual entry summary 
lines. Under Section 10, the importer would have the option of 
classifying these types of imports under the tariff provision 
for the complete, finished good, provided certain proof 
thresholds are met, including an agreement for the purchase of 
the complete machinery. This tariff treatment is currently 
allowed by some of the trading partners of the U.S.

                                  - 
