[WPRT 109-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress 
 1st Session                COMMITTEE PRINT                       WMCP:
                                                                  109-7
_______________________________________________________________________
                                     
 
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               __________

                            WRITTEN COMMENTS

                                   on

    TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO U.S. TRADE LAWS AND MISCELLANEOUS DUTY 

                            SUSPENSION BILLS





                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                     
                           SEPTEMBER 2, 2005





         Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means


                                 _____

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

23-732                 WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free 
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001








                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                   BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida           CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut        FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
WALLY HERGER, California             SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa                     RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania           WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona               JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
JERRY WELLER, Illinois               XAVIER BECERRA, California
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri           LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
MARK FOLEY, Florida                  STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   MIKE THOMPSON, California
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York         JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JOHN LINDER, Georgia
BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
DEVIN NUNES, California

                    Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
                  Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

                                 ______

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                  E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman

WALLY HERGER, California             BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania           SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa                     WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JERRY WELLER, Illinois               JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK FOLEY, Florida                  JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public 
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published 
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official 
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both 
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of 
converting between various electronic formats may introduce 
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the 
current publication process and should diminish as the process is 
further refined.






















                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page

Advisory of Tuesday, July 25, 2005, announcing request for 
  written comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
  and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills........................     1
Revised Advisory of Friday, August 5, 2005, announcing additional 
  bills on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
  Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills............................    19

                                 ------                                

H.R. 53: No comments submitted.
H.R. 178:
Buckman Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN, Charles D. Brandenburg 
  and William C. Pitcher, letter.................................    21
H.R. 445:
National Retail Federation, Erik O. Autor, statement.............    22
H.R. 521:
Dairy Australia, Victoria, Australia, Robert Pettit, letter......    22
Fonterra (USA), Inc., Lemoyne, PA, Edward J. Farrell, letter.....    26
General Mills, Jeffrey A. Shapiro, letter........................    29
Grocery Manufacturers Association, Mary Sophos, letter...........    30
Kerry Americas, Beloit, Wisconsin, Stan McCarthy, letter.........    32
National Milk Producers Federation, Arlington, Virginia, Jaime 
  Castaneda, statement...........................................    33
New Zealand, Government of, His Excellency John Wood, Ambassador, 
  letter.........................................................    39
Novartis Nutrition Corporation, Washington, DC, Tracy Haller, 
  letter.........................................................    39
RetireSafe, Oakton, Virginia, Charles G. Hardin, letter..........    41
U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients, letter...............    41
H.R. 617: No comments submitted.
H.R. 636: No comments submitted.
H.R. 637: No comments submitted.
H.R. 638: No comments submitted.
H.R. 639: No comments submitted.
H.R. 640: No comments submitted.
H.R. 641: No comments submitted.
H.R. 642: No comments submitted.
H.R. 643: No comments submitted.
H.R. 644: No comments submitted.
H.R. 645: No comments submitted.
H.R. 646: No comments submitted.
H.R. 647: No comments submitted.
H.R. 648: No comments submitted.
H.R. 707: No comments submitted.
H.R. 915:
Aimaq, Muzhdah, Davis, California, letter........................    44
American Numismatic Association, Colorado Springs, CO, 
  Christopher Cipoletti, letter..................................    45
American Numismatic Society, John W. Adams, Boston, MA, Kenneth 
  L. Edlow, New York, NY, Peter P. Gaspar, St. Louis, MO, Robert 
  A. Kandel, New Rochelle, NY, Clifford L. Mishler, Iola, WI, 
  Emilio M. Ortiz, San Juan, PR, Douglass F. Rohrman, Kenilworth, 
  IL, Stanley DeForest Scott, New York, NY, David B. Simpson, 
  Tenafly, NJ, Peter K. Tompa, Washington, DC, Arnold-Peter C. 
  Weiss, MD, Barrington, RI, John Whitney Walter, Plandome, NY, 
  joint letter...................................................    46
American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, MA, Douglas R. 
  Clark, Ph.D., letter...........................................    47
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, Gainesville, MO, Wayne G. Sayles, 
  letter and attachment..........................................    48
H.R. 915--Continued
Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, MA, Jane C. 
  Waldbaum, letter...............................................    55
Archaeological Institute of America, Bryn Mawr, PA, James C. 
  Wright, letter.................................................    56
Archaeological Institute of America, Long Island Society 
  Melville, NY, Naomi and Jesse Taub, letter.....................    57
Archaeological Institute of America, Milwaukee Society Milwaukee, 
  WI, Katherine Murrell, letter..................................    57
Archaeological Legacy Institute, Eugene, OR, Richard M. 
  Pettigrew, letter..............................................    58
Association of Dedicated Byzantine Collectors, Framingham, MA, 
  Prudence Morgan Fitts, letter..................................    59
Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, New 
  York, NY, Elizabeth Simpson, letter............................    59
Braly, Bobby R., University of Tennessee, Frank H. McClung 
  Museum, Knoxville, TN, letter..................................    60
Britt, Kelly M., Columbia University, Lancaster, PA, letter......    60
Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., Lancaster, PA, Eric James 
  Mcfadden, letter...............................................    61
Creamer, Winifred Wheaton, IL, letter............................    63
Dancsecs, Mark Stephen and Soraya Delawari, Pasadena, CA, joint 
  letter.........................................................    63
Delawari, Qudrat and Yasmine, San Diego, CA, joint letter........    64
DiMarzio, Paul, Bethel, CT, letter...............................    64
Eagle, Tara, Oxford, OH, letter..................................    65
Eckert, Suzanne L., Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 
  letter.........................................................    66
Engineering and Science Students for the Reconstruction of 
  Afghanistan, Fremont, CA, Masood Sattari, letter...............    66
European Association of Archaeologists, Exeter, United Kingdom, 
  Anthony Harding, letter........................................    67
Fischer, John E., Wabash College, Louisville, KY, letter.........    68
Foley, Kevin P., Waltham, MA, letter.............................    68
Ford, Anabel, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, letter    69
Gardner, Gregg, New York, letter.................................    70
German Archaeological Institute, Cairo, Egypt, Daniel Polz, 
  letter.........................................................    70
Ghous, Mostafa, Castro Valley, CA, letter........................    71
HRA, Inc., Conservation Archaeology, Henderson, NV, Suzanne B. 
  Eskenazi, letter...............................................    72
Industry Council for Tangible Assets, Severna Park, MD, Eloise A. 
  Ullman, letter.................................................    73
Ingleston, Kevin W., Frankfort, MI, letter.......................    73
International Association of Professional Numismatists, 
  Professional Numismatists Guild, and the Ancient Coin 
  Collectors Guild, Peter K. Tompa, joint statement..............    74
Jauch, Christine Irene, Oxford, OH, letter.......................    79
Johnson, Lucille Lewis, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, letter.    79
Johnson, Matthew, Encino, CA, letter.............................    80
Kuns, Erin, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, letter..........    80
Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation Chicago, 
  IL, Patty Gerstenblith, letter.................................    81
Leigh, Shawna, The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA, 
  letter.........................................................    83
Lundn, Staffan, Gteborg, Sweden, letter..........................    83
Marshall, Sydne B., Westfield, NJ, letter........................    84
Peres, Tanya M., Murfreesboro, Tennessee, letter.................    85
Pick, Robert O., Las Cruces, NM, letter..........................    85
Rasmussen, Josephine Munch, Oslo, Norway, letter.................    86
Ray, Paul, Berrien Springs, Michigan, letter.....................    86
Redman, Angela, Seattle, WA, letter..............................    87
Saving Antiquities for Everyone, Jersey City, NJ, Cindy Ho, 
  letter.........................................................    88
Society for American Archaeology, Kenneth M. Ames, letter........    88
The Field Museum, Chicago, IL, Deborah Bekken, letter............    89
The World Archaeological Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Dr Claire 
  Smith, Dr Larry J. Zimmerman, letter...........................    90
Underhill, Anne P., Chicago, Illinois, letter....................    91
Unidroit-L, Goleta, CA, David E. Welsh, letter...................    92
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 
  Jodi Magness, letter...........................................    97
H.R. 1068:
American Iron & Steel Institute, Cold Finished Steel Bar 
  Institute, Committee on Pipe & Tube Imports, Metals Service 
  Center Institute, Specialty Steel Industry of North America, 
  Steel Manufacturers Association, United Steelworkers, and Wire 
  Rod Producers' Coalition, joint statement......................    98
American Wire Producers Association, Alexandria, VA, Robert 
  Moffitt, letter................................................    98
Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable 
  Manufacturers, Jeffrey S. Levin, letter........................   100
Independent Steelworkers Union, Weirton, WV, Mark Glyptis, letter   101
Trinity Industries, Inc., Dallas, TX, letter.....................   103
H.R. 1115:
Neville Peterson, LLP, New York, NY, John M. Peterson, letter....   105
H.R. 1121:
A.C. Houston Lumber Company, North Las Vegas, NV, Michael M. 
  Murray, letter.................................................   108
Accent Furniture, Maryland Heights, MO, Dennis Boyd, letter......   109
AK Steel Corporation, Middletown, OH, James L. Wainscott, letter.   110
Alcoa, Russell C. Wisor, letter..................................   111
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Pittsburgh, PA, Jon D. 
  Walton, statement..............................................   112
Alperts, Inc., Seekonk, MA, Hershel L. Alpert, letter............   113
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   114
American Chamber of Commerce in Germany e.V., Berlin, Germany, 
  Dierk Mueller, letter..........................................   115
American Iron and Steel Institute, statement.....................   118
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, Auggie Tantillo, 
  letter.........................................................   119
American Wholesale Furniture, Inc, Indianapolis, IN, Jim Mahin, 
  letter.........................................................   120
Ampac Packaging, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, John Q. Baumann, letter....   121
Ash Grove Cement Company, Overland Park, KS, Charles T. 
  Sunderland, letter.............................................   122
Association of Food Industries, Inc., Neptune, NJ, Jeffrey S. 
  Levin, letter..................................................   123
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Arlington, 
  VA, Timothy MacCarthy, letter..................................   124
Backyard Ventures, Amarillo, TX, Michael Thomas DeArmon, 
  statement......................................................   125
Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers Association, Birmingham, 
  United Kingdom, Kathryn Joy Hartigan, letter...................   126
Bartlett, Josiah H., Moultonboro, NH, statement..................   129
Best Buy Co., Inc., Richfield, MN, Paula J. Prahl, letter........   130
British Embassy, David Manning, letter...........................   131
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, Berlin, Germany, Beatrice 
  Khne and Sigrid Zirbel, statement..............................   132
Buzzi Unicem USA Inc., Bethlehem, PA, David A. Nepereny, Michael 
  Berlin, William Humenuk, Bruce Keim, joint letter..............   132
Cal-Asia Truss, Concord, CA, Allen Erickson, statement...........   133
Calfiornia Minnesota Honey Farms, Eagle Bend, MN, Jeff Anderson..   134
California Cut Flower Commission, Watsonville, CA, Lee Murphy, 
  letter.........................................................   135
California Portland Cement Company, Glendora, CA, James A. 
  Repman, letter.................................................   137
Canadian Embassy, Frank McKenna, letter..........................   138
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Reading, PA, William A. 
  Wellock, letter................................................   138
Cattle Producers of Washington, Soap Lake, WA, Chad Henneman, 
  letter.........................................................   139
Censea Inc., Northfield, IL, Jeffrey A. Stern, letter............   141
Century Furniture, Hickory, NC, Robert J. Maricich, joint letter.   142
Chambers Truss Inc, Fort Pierce, FL, Robert John Becht, statement   143
City Furniture, Tamarac, FL, Keith Koenig, letter................   144
Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, Barry Cullen, statement.......   145
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, David A. Hartquist, letter.   146
Confederation of British Industry, London, United Kingdom, Gary 
  J. Campkin, letter.............................................   147
Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU, 
  Brussels, Belgium, Daniela Israelachwili, letter...............   148
Consumers for World Trade, Maureen Smith, letter.................   148
Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition, Michael I. Fanning, 
  letter.........................................................   150
Contessa Premium Foods, Inc., San Pedro, CA, Gregory J. Morrow, 
  letter.........................................................   152
Copeland Furniture, Bradford, VT, Timothy E. Copeland, letter....   153
Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Joseph Mayer, letter.......   153
H.R. 1121--Continued
Council Tool, Lake Waccamaw, NC, John M. Council, letter.........   154
Crawfish Processors Alliance, Breaux Bridge, LA, Adam J. Johnson, 
  letter.........................................................   156
DAK Americas LLC, Charlotte, NC, Richard A. Lane Jr., letter.....   158
Eagle Materials Inc., Dallas, TX, Steven R. Rowley, letter.......   159
Embassy of Chile, Andres Bianchi, letter.........................   160
Embassy of India, Ronen Sen, letter..............................   161
Empress International, Ltd., Port Washington, NY, Timothy 
  McLellan, letter...............................................   161
European Chemical Industry Council, Brussels, Belgium, Rene Van 
  Sloten, letter.................................................   162
European Commission Delegation, Angelos Pangratis, letter........   163
European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, statement 
  and attachment.................................................   165
European Steel Tube Association, Marc Bodineau, letter...........   167
Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations, 
  Frankfurt, Germany, Andreas Rowold, letter.....................   168
Floral Trade Council, Ovid, MI, William R. Carlson, letter.......   169
Florida Forest Products, Largo, FL, Richard Cashman, statement...   170
Food and Drink Federation, Melanie Leech, London, England, letter   172
French Federation of ores, industrial minerals and non ferrous 
  metals, Paris, France, Patricia Vasseur, letter................   172
Gates Corporation, Denver, CO, A.L. Stecklein, letter............   173
Gebr. Reinfurt GmbH & Co. Kg, Wuerzburg, Germany, Sabine 
  Reinfurt-Jaeger, letter........................................   173
General Mills UK, J.G. Moseley, Middlesex, England, letter.......   175
Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., Tampa, FL, Phillip E. Casey, letter.....   175
Government of Japan, statement...................................   176
Grocery Manufacturers Association, Mary Sophos, letter...........   178
Hanson Aggregates, San Diego, CA, Mark T. Long, letter...........   179
Hart's Manufacturing Committee, Collierville, TN, Thomas W. Hart, 
  letter.........................................................   180
Higdon Furniture Co., Quincy, FL, Warren Higdon III, letter......   180
Hilex Poly Co., LLC, Hartsville, SC, David C. Booher, letter.....   181
Home Decorators Collection, Inc., Hazelwood, MO, Thomas K. 
  Wilcher, letter................................................   182
Honeyland, Inc., Wolf Point, MT, Harry Rodenberg, statement......   183
Idaho Truss & Component Co., Meridian, ID, Kendall R. Hoyd, 
  letter.........................................................   183
Independent Steelworkers Union, Weirton, WV, Mark Glyptis, letter   184
International Dynasty Corporation, Houston, TX, Sophie Chen, 
  letter.........................................................   186
International Foodservice Distributors Association, Falls Church, 
  VA, David French, letter.......................................   187
Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment, Tokyo, Japan, 
  Osamu Morimoto, letter and attachment..........................   187
Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Manhattan, KS, Doran Junk, letter   193
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Peoria, IL, David L. 
  Cheek, letter..................................................   195
Kincaid Furniture Company, Inc., Hudson, NC, Steven M. Kincaid, 
  letter.........................................................   195
Koyo Corporation of USA, Westlake, OH, Thomas Peacock, letter....   196
L'Union des Industries de la Communaute Europenne, Brussels, 
  Belgium, Philippe De Buck, statement and attachment............   198
Lafarge North America, Herndon, VA, Sherry E. Peske, letter......   199
Lehigh Cement Company, Allentown, PA, Jeffry Brozyna, letter.....   200
Libbey Inc., Toledo, OH, Susan Allene Kovach, letter.............   201
Littfin Lumber Company, Bob Mochinski, Winsted, Minnesota, letter   202
Los Angeles Cold Storage Company, Los Angeles, CA, Larry Rauch, 
  letter.........................................................   203
Lumi-Lite Candle Co., Inc., Norwich, OH, George Pappas Sr., 
  letter.........................................................   204
Marine Management Insurance Brokers, Inc., Park City, UT, Curtis 
  W. Keyes, letter...............................................   205
Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc., Kahului, HI, Warren A. 
  Suzuki, letter.................................................   206
Members of the Minnesota Legislature Representing Minnesota's 
  ``Iron Range,'' Saint Paul, MN, Tom Bakk, Tom Saxhaug, David 
  Tomassoni, Irv Anderson, David Dill, Tom Rukavina, Tony 
  Sertich, and Loren Solberg, joint statement....................   207
Mexinox USA, Inc., Bannockburn, IL, Adolfo Acevedo, letter.......   208
Michelin North America, Greenville, SC, Martin Wardle, letter....   208
Michels and Company, Lynwood, CA, Irwin Allen, letter............   209
Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, Roderic W. Lewis, letter.....   209
MJ Wood Products, Inc., Morrisville, VT, Geoffrey Jackson, letter   211
Mobel, Inc., Ferdinand, IN, Paul A. Ruhe, letter.................   212
H.R. 1121--Continued
Montana Cattlemen's Association, Billings, MT, Brett DeBruycker, 
  letter.........................................................   213
Moosehead Manufacturing Company, Monson, ME, John E. Wentworth, 
  letter.........................................................   215
Mountain Avenue Bees, Inc., Hesperia, CA, Ron Spears, letter.....   216
National Cement Company of California, Encino, CA, Donald J. 
  Unmacht Jr., letter............................................   216
National Confectioners Association and Chocolate Manufactures 
  Association, Vienna, Virginia, Lawrence T. Graham and Lynn 
  Bragg, joint statement.........................................   217
National Fisheries Institute, McLean, VA, John Connelly, letter..   220
National Retail Federation, statement............................   221
Neenah Foundry Company, Neenah, WI, Timothy J. Koller, letter....   226
North American Stainless, Ghent, KY, Mary Jean Riley, letter.....   226
NSK Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI, Tom Rouse, letter................   227
Oregon Truss Co., Inc., Salem, OR, David W. Hughes, statement....   229
Pacamor Kubar Bearings, Troy, NY, Augustine J. Sperrazza Jr., 
  letter.........................................................   230
Plum Building Systems Inc., Osceola, IA, Richard Parrino, letter.   232
Precision Metalforming Association, Independence, OH, William E. 
  Gaskin, letter and attachment..................................   233
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
  America, Billings, MT, Leo R. McDonnell, letter................   236
Raymour & Flanigan, Neil Goldberg, Liverpool, New York, letter...   237
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   238
Rich Products Corporation, Buffalo, NY, Robert E. Rich Jr., 
  letter.........................................................   240
Rich-seapak Corporation, Saint Simons Island, GA, Jack C. 
  Kilgore, letter................................................   241
Rinker Materials, West Palm Beach, FL, Eddie Allsopp, Karl 
  Watson, letter.................................................   242
Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 
  John A. Sandberg, Phillip Sweet, and Michael Bagwell, joint 
  letter.........................................................   243
Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., New York, NY, Max F. Schutzman, 
  letter.........................................................   244
Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., Baldwinville, MA, 
  George Davenport Jones III.....................................   248
Shelter Systems Limited, Westminster, MD, Joseph Dwight Hikel, 
  statement......................................................   248
Sioux Honey Association, Sioux City, IA, David Barclay Allibone, 
  letter.........................................................   250
Southern Shrimp Alliance, Tarpon Springs, FL, Deborah Long, 
  statement......................................................   250
Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Jack W. Shilling, 
  statement......................................................   251
Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, letter..................   253
Stock Building Supply, Dayton, OH, Christopher Paulhus, statement   256
Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Kennett Square, PA, Gary F. Caligiuri, 
  letter.........................................................   258
Superbag Corporation, Houston, TX, Isaac Bazbaz, letter..........   259
Tampa Maid Foods, Inc., Lakeland, FL, Edward B. Smith, letter....   259
Texas Industries, Dallas, TX, Mel G. Brekhus, letter.............   260
The Bombay Company, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, Michael J. 
  Veitenheimer, letter...........................................   261
The Food Products Association, Scott Riehl, statement............   262
The Garlic Company, Bakersfield, CA, Joe Lane and John Layous, 
  letter.........................................................   264
The Home Depot, Kent Knutson, letter.............................   266
The NTN Companies, Mt. Prospect, IL, Kazumune V. Kano, letter....   266
Titan America, Coral Springs, FL, Deerfield Beach, FL, Orlando 
  Vazquez, Timothy Kuebler, and Robert A. Sells, joint letter....   268
Titan America, LLC, Norfolk, VA, Russell A. Fink, letter.........   269
Trade Masters, LLC, Peachtree City, GA, Ron O'Dell, letter.......   270
U.S. Dairy Export Council, Arlington, VA, Thomas M. Suber, 
  statement......................................................   271
U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Corp., Hialeah, FL, Alex L. 
  DeBogory, letter...............................................   271
Union de Empresas Siderurgicas, Madrid, Spain, Juan Ignacio 
  Bartolome, letter..............................................   272
Union of Italian Pasta Manufacturers, Rome, Italy, Mario Rummo, 
  letter.........................................................   273
Union of Organizations of Manufacturers of Pasta Products of the 
  E.U., Rome, Italy, Mario Rummo, letter.........................   274
United States Steel Corporation, Terrence D. Straub, letter......   275
United Steelworkers, William J. Klinefelter, Pittsburgh, PA, 
  letter.........................................................   275
Up Country, Inc., Cumming, GA, Leslie W. Thompson, letter........   276
U.S. Magnesium LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, Lee R. Brown, letter.....   278
Vanguard Plastics, Farmers Branch, TX, William C. Seanor, joint 
  letter.........................................................   279
Vaughan Furniture Company, Inc., Galax, VA, William B. Vaughan, 
  letter.........................................................   280
Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Corporation, Galax, VA, John D. Bassett 
  IV, letter.....................................................   281
Vessey and Company, Inc., El Centro, CA, Mark Allegranza, 
  statement......................................................   282
H.R. 1121--Continued
WCI Steel, Inc., Warren, OH, Patrick G. Tatom, letter............   283
Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., Galax, VA, Lee H. Houston, 
  Robert Kirby, John Mcghee, and Barry Branscome, joint letter...
Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., John Mcghee, Galax, VA, joint 
  letter.........................................................   284
Wellman, Inc., Fort Mill, SC, Thomas M. Duff, letter.............   285
Wieland Metals, Inc., Wheeling, IL, Markus Schuler, letter.......   286
Will & Baumer, Inc., Syracuse, NY, Marshall John Ciccone, letter.   287
WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle, Hans-Reiner Haeussler, and 
  Wilfried Held, joint letter....................................   287
Wood Truss Council of America, Madison, WI, Kendall Hoyd and Sean 
  Shields, letter................................................   288
H.R. 1202:
Johnson Controls, Inc., Plymouth, MI, William J. Kohler, letter..   290
H.R. 1221:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   290
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   292
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   293
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   295
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   297
H.R. 1230:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   298
Kellwood Company, Chesterfield, MO, Wendy Wieland, letter........   300
H.R. 1274:
Solvay Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX, Richard L. Hogan, letter....   300
H.R. 1336:
Cymer,Inc., San Diego, CA, Albert P. Cefalo, letter..............   301
Semi, Maggie Hershey, Washington, DC, letter.....................   202

H.R. 1391: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1392: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1407:
Wire Rod Producers Coalition, Paul C. Rosenthal, statement.......   302

H.R. 1444: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1464: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1465: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1466: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1534:
Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products 
  Manufacturers, George Leroy Bowen III, letter..................   304
Coats & Clark, Albany, GA, Audie McDearis, letter................   305
Culp Inc., Burlington, NC, Jerald Stephen Owens, joint letter....   305
Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa, Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, DC, 
  letter.........................................................   306
National Council of Textile Organizations, Missy J. Branson, 
  letter.........................................................   307
National Spinning Co., Inc., Washington, NC, James Chesnutt, 
  letter.........................................................   307
Patrick, Gilbert Hambright, Patrick Yarns, Kings Mountain, NC, 
  letter.........................................................   308
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A. 
  Liebenow, letter...............................................   309
Sterling Fibers, Pace, FL, Paul Saunders, statement..............   309
H.R. 1535:
Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products 
  Manufacturers, George Leroy Bowen III, letter..................   310
Coats & Clark, Albany, GA, Audie McDearis, letter................   310
Culp Inc., Burlington, NC, Jerald Stephen Owens, joint letter....   311
Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa, Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, DC, 
  letter.........................................................   311
National Council of Textile Organizations, Missy J. Branson, 
  letter.........................................................   312
National Spinning Co., Inc., Washington, NC, James Chesnutt, 
  letter.........................................................   313
Patrick, Gilbert Hambright, Patrick Yarns, Kings Mountain, NC, 
  letter.........................................................   314
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A. 
  Liebenow, letter...............................................   314
Sterling Fibers, Pace, FL, Paul Saunders, statement..............   315
H.R. 1536:
Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products 
  Manufacturers, George Leroy Bowen III, letter..................   315
Coats & Clark, Albany, GA, Audie McDearis, letter................   316
H.R. 1536--Continued
Culp Inc., Burlington, NC, Jerald Stephen Owens, joint letter....   316
Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa, Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, DC, 
  letter.........................................................   317
H.R. 1536--Continued
National Council of Textile Organizations, Missy J. Branson, 
  letter.........................................................   318
National Spinning Co., Inc., Washington, NC, James Chesnutt, 
  letter.........................................................   318
Patrick, Gilbert Hambright, Patrick Yarns, Kings Mountain, NC, 
  letter.........................................................   319
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A. 
  Liebenow, letter...............................................   320
Sterling Fibers, Pace, FL, Paul Saunders, statement..............   320

H.R. 1537: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1609: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1610: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1698: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1699: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1700: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1701: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1702: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1715:
LANXESS Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Jamie B. Schaeffer, letter..   321
PPG Industries, Inc., Monroeville, PA, Michael H. McGarry, letter   321

H.R. 1724: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1725: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1726: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1727: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1732:
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, David Newman, letter and 
  attachment.....................................................   322
H.R. 1733:
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, David Newman, letter and 
  attachment.....................................................   324
H.R. 1734:
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, NJ, David Newman, letter and 
  attachment.....................................................   325

H.R. 1752: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1775: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1777: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1778: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1779: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1780: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1781: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1782:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter....   327

H.R. 1783: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1784: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1785: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1786: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1787: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1788: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1799: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1802:
Montana Cattleman's Association, Billings, MT, Brett DeBruycker, 
  letter.........................................................   328
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
  America, Billings, MT, Leo R. McDonnell, letter................   330

H.R. 1813: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1824: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1826: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1827: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1828: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1829: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1830: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1831: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1832: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1833: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1838: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1839: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1840: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1841: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1842: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1843: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1844: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1845: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1846: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1848: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1851: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1854: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1855: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1856: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1857: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1858: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1877:
Continental AG, Auburn Hills, MI, Philip M. Headley, letter......   330

H.R. 1878: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1880: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1881: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1882: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1883: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1884: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1885: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1886: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1887: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1888: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1889: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1890: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1891: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1892: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1893: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1894: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1895: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1896: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1897: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1899: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1900: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1901: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1903: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1904: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1906: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1907: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1908: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1909: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1910: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1911: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1913: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1914:
Cherry Marketing Institute, Dewitt, MI, Philip J. Korson II......   331

H.R. 1915: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1916: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1917: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1918: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1919: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1920: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1921: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1922: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1923: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1924: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1925: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1926: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1927: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1928: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1934:
Tarkett, Inc., Houston, TX, Mannington Mills, Inc., Salem, NJ, 
  Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Lancaster, PA, Congoleum 
  Corp., Mercerville, NJ, Edward F. Gerwin, Jr., joint statement.   332

H.R. 1935: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1936: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1937: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1938: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1941: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1944: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1945:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   334
Brooks Brothers, Inc., New York, NY, Joe Dixon, letter...........   335
Buhler Quality Yarns Corporation, Jefferson, GA, W. Bieri, letter   336
Gitman Brothers, New York, NY, John Minahan III, letter..........   337
National Council of Textile Organizations, Cass Johnson, letter..   338
Supima, Phoenix, AZ, Jesse W. Curlee, letter.....................   339
H.R. 1947:
HoMedics, Commerce Township, MI, Renee Chiuchiarelli, letter.....   340
H.R. 1948:
HoMedics, Commerce Township, MI, Renee Chiuchiarelli, letter.....   341
H.R. 1949:
HoMedics, Commerce Township, MI, Renee Chiuchiarelli, letter.....   342
National Candle Association, Randolph Stayin, Washington, DC, 
  letter.........................................................   343

H.R. 1959: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1962: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1963: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1964: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1965: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1966: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1967: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1968: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1969: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1970: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1971: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1976: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1978: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1979: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1990: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1991: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1992: No comments submitted.

H.R. 1997: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2003:
Cheese Importers Association of America, Inc., New York, NY, 
  Thomas G. Toto, letter.........................................   344
International Dairy Foods Association, Connie Tipton, letter.....   344
Lactalis American Group, Inc., Buffalo, NY, Erick Boutry, letter.   345
The Tipton Group, E. Linwood Tipton, letter......................   346

H.R. 2009: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2010: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2015:
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Milwaukee, WI, Wayne T. Curtin, 
  letter.........................................................   347

H.R. 2016: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2019: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2020: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2021: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2022: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2023: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2024: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2025: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2026: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2027: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2028: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2029: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2030: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2031: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2032: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2033: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2056:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter....   348

H.R. 2077: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2078: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2079: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2080: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2081: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2082: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2083: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2084: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2085: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2086: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2091: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2093: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2094: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2095: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2096:
Beaver Manufacturing Company, Mansfield, GA, William D. Loeble, 
  letter.........................................................   349

H.R. 2114: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2115: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2116: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2117:
Clariant Corporation, Martin, SC, Andrew Zamoyski, letter........   350

H.R. 2118: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2119:
Sun Chemical Corp., Cincinnati, OH, Edwin B. Faulkner, letter....   350

H.R. 2120: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2128: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2135: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2136: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2137: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2138: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2139: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2140: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2141: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2142: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2143: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2144: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2145:
Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, OH, David L. Cowen, letter......   350
H.R. 2146:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter....   350
H.R. 2147:
R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, CT, Joseph Denaro, letter 
  and attachment.................................................   351

H.R. 2148: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2149: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2150: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2151:
Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, OH, David L. Cowen, letter......   352
H.R. 2152:
R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, CT, Joseph Denaro, letter 
  and attachment.................................................   353

H.R. 2153: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2154: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2155: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2156: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2157: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2158: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2159: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2160: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2161: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2162: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2163: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2164: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2165: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2166: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2167: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2168: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2169: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2170: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2171: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2172:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter....   354

H.R. 2173: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2175: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2179:
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc., Simeon M. Kriesberg, joint 
  letter.........................................................   355

H.R. 2198: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2212: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2213: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2214: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2215: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2220: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2221:
Velsicol Chemical Corporation, Rosemont, IL, Elizabeth Anne 
  Karkula, letter................................................   356

H.R. 2222: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2223: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2224: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2225: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2226:
Celanese, Bob Carpenter, letter..................................   357
Lanxess Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Jamie B. Schaeffer, letter..   358

H.R. 2227: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2228: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2241: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2242: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2243: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2244: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2245: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2246: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2252: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2253: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2254: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2255: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2256: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2260: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2261: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2262: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2263: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2264: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2265:
Sybron Chermicals Inc., Burmingham, NJ, Ralf Matt, statement.....   358
H.R. 2266:
Purolite Company, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Don Brodie, letter............   358
Sybron Chermicals Inc., Burmingham, NJ, Ralf Matt, statement.....   359

H.R. 2267: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2268: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2269: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2270: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2271: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2272: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2273: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2274: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2275: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2276: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2277: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2278: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2279: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2280: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2281: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2282: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2285:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement.....................   359
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement   360
H.R. 2286:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement.....................   360
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement   361
H.R. 2287:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement.....................   361
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement   362
H.R. 2288:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement.....................   363
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement   363
H.R. 2289:
Mattel Inc., Thomas F. St. Maxens, statement.....................   364
Tara Toy Corporation, Hauppauge, NY, Louis S. Shoichet, statement   365

H.R. 2302: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2303: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2309: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2310: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2311: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2312: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2313: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2314: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2315: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2316: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2336: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2371: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2372: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2373: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2374: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2375: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2377: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2380:
Oscient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Waltham, MA, Stephen Cohen, 
  letter.........................................................   365

H.R. 2381: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2382: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2394: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2395: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2396: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2397: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2402: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2403: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2404: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2405: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2406: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2424: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2430: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2431: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2432: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2433: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2434: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2435: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2436: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2437: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2438: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2439: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2440: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2441: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2442: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2443: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2444: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2445: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2446: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2447: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2448: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2449: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2450: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2451: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2452: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2453: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2454: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2459: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2460: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2461: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2462: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2463: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2464: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2465: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2466: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2467: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2468: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2469:
Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID, Roderic W. Lewis, statement..   366
H.R. 2473:
AK Steel Corporation, Middletown, Ohio, James L. Wainscott, 
  letter.........................................................   367
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Pittsburgh, PA, Jon D. 
  Walton, statement..............................................   368
H.R. 2473--Continued
American Iron and Steel Institute, Jennifer L. Diggins, statement   369
Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Randolph J. Stayin, Esq., letter.........   370
California Minnesota Honey Farms, Eagle Bend, MN, Jeff Anderson..   371
California Cut Flower Commission, Watsonville, CA, Lee Murphy, 
  letter.........................................................   372
Cattle Producers of Washington, Soap Lake, Washington, Chad 
  Henneman, letter...............................................   374
Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, David A. Hartquist, letter.   375
Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Joseph Mayer, letter.......   376
Council Tool Company, Inc., Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina, John 
  M. Council III, letter.........................................   377
Floral Trade Council, Ovid, Michigan, William R. Carlson, letter.   378
Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., Tampa, FL, Phillip E. Casey, letter.....   380
Independent Steelworkers Union, Weirton, West Virginia, Mark 
  Glyptis, letter................................................   381
Japan, Government of, Ryozo Kato, Ambassador, statement..........   382
Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Manhattan, Kansas, Doran Junk, 
  letter.........................................................   383
Libbey Inc., Toledo, Ohio, Susan Allene Kovach, letter...........   385
Montana Cattlemen's Association, Billings, Montana, Brett 
  DeBruycker, letter.............................................   387
Pacamor Kubar Bearings, Troy, NY, Augustine J. Sperrazza Jr., 
  letter.........................................................   388
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
  America, Billings, Montana, Leo R. McDonnell, letter...........   390
Sioux Honey Association, Sioux City, Iowa, David Allibone, letter   391
Stewart and Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, letter..................   392
The Garlic Company, Bakersfield, CA, Joe Lane and John Layous, 
  letter.........................................................   395
United States Steel Corporation, Terrence D. Straub, letter......   397
United Steelworkers, William J. Klinefelter, Pittsburgh, PA, 
  letter.........................................................   397
Wellman, Inc., Fort Mill, South Carolina, Thomas M. Duff, letter.   398
H.R. 2477:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   399
H.R. 2478:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   400
H.R. 2479:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   402

H.R. 2480: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2481: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2482: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2483: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2492: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2493: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2494: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2495: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2496: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2497: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2501: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2502: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2503: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2504: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2505: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2506: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2507: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2522: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2523: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2524: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2532: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2535: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2536: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2537:
Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Dan Packer, letter...........   403

H.R. 2538: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2539: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2540: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2542: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2543: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2544: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2545: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2546: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2547: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2548: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2549:
Sun Chemical Corp., Cincinnati, OH, Edwin B. Faulkner, letter....   403

H.R. 2550: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2551: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2552: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2556:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   404
H.R. 2557:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   405
H.R. 2573:
Milliken & Company, Joe Salley, letter...........................   407

H.R. 2575: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2576: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2577: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2578: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2579: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2580: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2581: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2582: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2583: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2584: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2585: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2586: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2589:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   413
Harodite Industries, Inc., Danville, VA, Dewey M. Rutledge Jr., 
  letter.........................................................   415
H.R. 2590:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   415
Harodite Industries, Inc., Danville, VA, Dewey M. Rutledge Jr., 
  letter.........................................................   417
H.R. 2591:
Cheraw Yarn Mills, Cheraw, South Carolina, William M. Malloy, 
  Jr., letter....................................................   418
National Council of Textile Organizations, Cass Johnson, letter..   418
Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, Fall River, MA, Larry A. 
  Liebenow, letter...............................................   420
Richmond Yarns, Inc., Rockingham, NC, Kenneth L. Goodman, Jr., 
  letter.........................................................   421
H.R. 2596:
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Nancy Noonan, 
  Washington, DC, letter.........................................   422
H.R. 2597:
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Nancy Noonan, 
  Washington, DC, letter.........................................   423
H.R. 2598:
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Nancy Noonan, 
  Washington, DC, letter.........................................   424

H.R. 2602: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2603: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2604: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2605: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2606: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2607: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2608: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2609: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2610: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2611: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2612: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2613: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2614: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2615: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2624:
MT Picture Display Corp. of America, Troy, Ohio, letter..........   425
Sony Electronics Inc., Park Ridge, New Jersey, David Newman, 
  letter.........................................................   426

H.R. 2632: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2675: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2676: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2677: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2678: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2696: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2697: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2698: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2699: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2700: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2701: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2702: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2703: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2704: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2705: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2706: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2707: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2708: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2709: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2710: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2711: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2712: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2713: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2714: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2764: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2765: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2766: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2767: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2768: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2769: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2770: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2771: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2772: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2773: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2774: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2775: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2776: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2777: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2781: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2782: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2783: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2784: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2785: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2806: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2809: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2810: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2816:
Association of Food Industries, Inc., Neptune, New Jersey, 
  Jeffrey S. Levin, letter.......................................   426
Del Monte Foods/StarKist Brands, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Jeff 
  Watters, statement.............................................   427
H.R. 2817:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter..   428
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   429
H.R. 2818:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter..   430
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   431
H.R. 2819:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter..   432
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   433
H.R. 2820:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter..   434
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   435
H.R. 2821:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachusetts, letter..   436
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   437

H.R. 2825: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2833:
Chemtura Chemical, Waterbury, CT, Llyod N. Moon, joint letter....   438

H.R. 2836: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2837: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2838: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2839: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2845: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2847: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2848: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2849: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2850: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2851: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2852: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2853: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2854: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2855: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2856:
Spalding, Scott H. Creelman, Springfield, Massachussets, Letter..   439

H.R. 2879: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2880: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2881: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2882: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2883: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2884: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2885: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2886: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2887: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2888: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2889: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2890: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2896:
Grocery Manufacturers Association, Mary Sophos, letter...........   439

H.R. 2906: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2907: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2908: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2909: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2913: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2914: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2915: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2916: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2917: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2918: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2919: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2920: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2921: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2922: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2954:
Chemalloy Company, Inc., Bryn Mawr, PA, Anthony C. Demos, letter.   440
Embassy of South Africa, Barbara Masekela, letter................   441
Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd., Nelspruit, South Africa, 
  Keith Saffy, letter............................................   442
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Newfield, New Jersey, 
  Cheryl Ellsworth, letter.......................................   443

H.R. 2972: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2973: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2974: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2975: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2976: No comments submitted.

H.R. 2996:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   445
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   445
H.R. 2997:
Pan American Grain Co., Inc., Guaynabo, PR, Milton Rafael 
  Gonzalez, letter...............................................   446
Agramericas, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Kevin R. Deuel, 
  letter.........................................................   446
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   447
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   447
Lyondell Chemical Company, Houston, Texas, W. Norman Phillips, 
  letter.........................................................   448
The Connell Company, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, Grover 
  Connell, letter................................................   448
H.R. 2998:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   449
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter...........   450
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, Texas, J.W. Brown, letter.   450
H.R. 2999:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, Texas, Bobby Waid, letter   451
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter...........   451
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   451
H.R. 3001:
BP America, Inc., Warrenville, IL, Timothy W. Van Oost, letter...   452
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   452
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter...........   453
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   453
H.R. 3002:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   453
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   454
Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., Guaynabo, PR, Milton 
  R. Gonzalez, letter............................................   454
The Connell Company, Berkeley Heights, NJ, Grover Connell, letter   455

H.R. 3015: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3016: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3023: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3024: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3025: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3026: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3027: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3028: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3029: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3030: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3033:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   455
H.R. 3066:
Deere & Company, Moline, IL, Thomas K. Jarrett, letter...........   457
H.R. 3067:
Deere & Company, Moline, IL, Thomas K. Jarrett, letter...........   458
Ponsse North America Inc., Rhinelander, WI, Ruth H. Nelson, 
  letter and attachment..........................................   459

H.R. 3089: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3090: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3091: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3092: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3093: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3105: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3106: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3112:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   462
H.R. 3113:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   464
H.R. 3114:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   465
H.R. 3115:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   466
H.R. 3116:
Global Home Products, Westerville, OH, George E. Hamilton, letter   468
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   470
H.R. 3117:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   472
H.R. 3118:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   473

H.R. 3119: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3120: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3126: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3176:
United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, 
  New York, NY, Laura E. Jones, letter...........................   474

H.R. 3210: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3211: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3212: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3213: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3214: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3215: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3216: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3217: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3218: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3219: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3220: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3221: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3222: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3223: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3224: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3225: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3226: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3227: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3228: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3229: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3230: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3231: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3232: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3233: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3234: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3235: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3236: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3237: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3238: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3239: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3240: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3241: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3242: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3243: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3244: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3245: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3246: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3247: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3257: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3258: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3285: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3286: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3287:
Clariant Corporation, Dan Packer, Coventry, RI, letter...........   476

H.R. 3288: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3289:
Clariant Corporation, Dan Packer, Coventry, RI, letter...........   476

H.R. 3290: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3291: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3292: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3293: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3294: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3295: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3303:
ATF, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL, Don Cunningham, letter...............   477
Federal Screw Works, St. Clair Shores, MI, John O'Brien, letter..   477
Illinois Tool Works Inc., Glenview, Illinois, Michael J. Lynch, 
  letter.........................................................   478
Industrial Fasteners Institute, Cleveland, OH, Rob J. Harris, 
  letter.........................................................   478
MacLean-Fogg Company, Mundelein, IL, Timothy Taylor, letter......   479
Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp., Columbia Station, OH, Raymond L. 
  Gurnick, letter................................................   480
Wire Rod Producers Coalition, Paul C. Rosenthal, statement.......   480
H.R. 3308:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   482
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   484
H.R. 3309:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   485
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   487
H.R. 3310:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   488
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   490
H.R. 3311:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   491
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   493

H.R. 3340: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3341: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3342: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3343: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3346: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3353:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   495
Chevron USA, Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter.............   495
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   495
H.R. 3354:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   496
Chevron USA, Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter.............   496
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   497
H.R. 3355:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   497
Chevron USA, Inc., San Ramon, CA, Ken Kleier, letter.............   497
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   498
H.R. 3356:
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   498
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   499
H.R. 3357:
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, TX, Bobby Waid, letter...   499
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   499
H.R. 3363:
American Association of Exporters & Importers, Hallock Northcott, 
  statement......................................................   500
American Petroleum Institute, Michael Platner, letter............   501
C.J. Holt & Co. Inc., Oradell, New Jersey, Edwin W. Van Ek, 
  letter.........................................................   502
Charter Brokerage Corporation, Houston, Texas, Bobby Waid, letter   503
Comstock & Theakston, Inc., Oradell, NJ, William A. Hagedorn, 
  letter.........................................................   504
Customs Advisory Services, Inc., Atlanta, GA, George Keller, 
  letter.........................................................   505
Danzas AEI Drawback Services, Houston, TX, James W. Brown, letter   506
Florida Citrus Mutual, Lakeland, Florida, Andrew LaVigne, letter.   507
Joint Industry Group, Mary K. Alexander, letter..................   509
The Ad Hoc Drawback Group, San Francisco, California, Neill F. 
  Stroth, Anne-Marie Bush, letter................................   511
Veritrade International, Bellevue, WA, Anne-Marie Bush, letter...   513

H.R. 3371: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3386:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar,letter................................................   515
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   516
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   518
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   519
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   521
H.R. 3387:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   522
H.R. 3387--Continued
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   524
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   525
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   526
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   528
H.R. 3388:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   530
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   531
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   533
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   534
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   536
H.R. 3389:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   537
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   539
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   540
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   541
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   543
H.R. 3390:
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   545
H.R. 3391:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   546
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   548
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   549
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   551
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   553
H.R. 3392:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   554
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   555
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   557
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   558
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   560
H.R. 3393:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   561
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   563
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   564
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   566
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   568
H.R. 3394:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   569
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   570
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   572
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   573
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   575
H.R. 3395:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   576
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   578
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   579
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   581
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   583
H.R. 3414:
Meade Instruments Corporation, Peggy Clarke, letter..............   584
H.R. 3415: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3416:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   586
National Retail Federation, Erik O. Autor, statement.............   587
H.R 3483:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   588
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   590
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   591
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   592
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   594
H.R. 3484:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   596
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   597
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   599
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   600
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   602
H.R. 3485:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   603
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   605
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   606
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   607
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   609
H.R. 3486:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   611
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   612
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   614
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   615
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   617
H.R. 3487:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   618
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   620
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   621
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   622
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   624
H.R. 3488:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   626
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   627
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   629
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   630
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   632
H.R. 3489:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   633
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   635
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   636
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   637
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   639
H.R. 3490:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   641
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   642
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   644
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   645
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   647
H.R. 3491:
American Apparel and Footwear Association, Arlington, VA, Stephen 
  E. Lamar, letter...............................................   648
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, Peter T. 
  Mangione, letter...............................................   650
Payless ShoeSource, Topeka, KS, Michael J. Massey, letter........   651
Retail Industry Leaders Association, Arlington, VA, Sandra L. 
  Kennedy, letter................................................   653
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Angela Hofmann, letter....................   654

H.R. 3527: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3528: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3529: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3530: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3531: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3609: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3610: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3611: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3635: No comments submitted.

H.R. 3636: No comments submitted.


                                     

ADVISORY

FROM THE 
COMMITTEE
 ON WAYS 
AND 
MEANS

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                                CONTACT: (202) 225-0649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2005
No. TR-3

                       Shaw Announces Request for

              Written Comments on Technical Corrections to

                 U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty

                            Suspension Bills

    Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the 
Subcommittee is requesting written comments for the record from all 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
      

BACKGROUND:

      
    On March 10, 2005, Chairman Shaw requested that all Members who 
planned to introduce technical corrections and miscellaneous duty 
suspension legislation do so by April 28, 2005. Chairman Shaw is now 
requesting public comment on those bills listed below and is requesting 
budget scoring estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The 
deadline for the public to submit written comments to the Committee is 
Friday, September 2, 2005. After the comment period, the Subcommittee 
will review all comments and determine which bills should be included 
in a miscellaneous trade package. The Subcommittee will consider the 
extent to which the bills create a revenue loss, operate retroactively, 
attract controversy, or are not administrable.
      

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

      
    Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit 
for the record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of 
the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the 
Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ``109th 
Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http://
waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=17). Select the request 
for written comments for which you would like to submit, and click on 
the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the 
record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions, completing 
all informational forms and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an 
email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your 
interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to 
the email and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, 
in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close 
of business Friday, September 2, 2005. Finally, please note that due to 
the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse 
sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, 
or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
      

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

      
    The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the 
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the 
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will 
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to 
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the 
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the 
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for 
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any 
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these 
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee 
files for review and use by the Committee.
      
    1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in 
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, 
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the 
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 
hearing record.
      
    2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not 
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be 
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting 
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for 
review and use by the Committee.
      
    3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, 
and/ororganizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental 
sheet must accompany each submission listing the name, company, 
address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
      

SUMMARY OF BILLS:

Duty Suspension or Reduction bills:

      
    H.R. 53--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on chloroneb.
    H.R. 178--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl 
Ether.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture.
    H.R. 521--A bill to impose tariff-rate quotas on certain casein and 
milk protein concentrates.
    H.R. 617--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-nitrobenzoic 
acid (PNBA).
    H.R. 636--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Allyl 
Pentaerythritol (APE).
    H.R. 637--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Butyl Ethyl 
Propanediol (BEPD).
    H.R. 638--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on BEPD70L.
    H.R. 639--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Boltorn-1 
(Bolt-1).
    H.R. 640--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Boltorn-2 
(Bolt-2).
    H.R. 641--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclic TMP 
Formal (CTF).
    H.R. 642--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DiTMP.
    H.R. 643--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Polyol DPP 
(DPP).
    H.R. 644--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Hydroxypivalic 
Acid (HPA).
    H.R. 645--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMPDE.
    H.R. 646--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMPME.
    H.R. 647--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMP Oxetane 
(TMPO).
    H.R. 648--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMPO Ethoxylate 
(TMPOE).
    H.R. 707--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States with respect to rattan webbing.
    H.R. 1068--A bill to maintain and expand the steel import licensing 
and monitoring program.
    H.R. 1115--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to clarify the tariff rate for certain mechanics' gloves.
    H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    H.R. 1202--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on unidirectional 
(cardioid) electret condenser microphone modules for use in motor 
vehicles.
    H.R. 1221--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
or plastic footwear.
    H.R. 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents 
imported into the United States.
    H.R. 1274--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on amyl-
anthraquinone.
    H.R. 1336--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to clairfy the classification of laser light sources for 
semiconductor manufacturing.
    H.R. 1391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on allyl ureido 
monomer.
    H.R. 1392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on methacrylamido 
etheleneurae monomer.
    H.R. 1407--A bill to provide that certain wire rods shall not be 
subject to any antidumping duty or countervailing duty order.
    H.R. 1444--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
meatless frozen food products.
    H.R. 1464--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by 
vinegar or acetic acid.
    H.R. 1465--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 
acid.
    H.R. 1466--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by 
vinegar or acetic acid.
    H.R. 1534--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
synthetic staple fibers that are not carded, combed, or otherwise 
processed for spinning.
    H.R. 1535--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on acrylic or 
modacrylic synthetic filament tow.
    H.R. 1536--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
synthetic staple fibers that are carded, combed, or otherwise processed 
for spinning.
    H.R. 1537--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
nitrocellulose.
    H.R. 1609--A bill to reduce until December 31, 2008, the duty on 
potassium sorbate.
    H.R. 1610--A bill to reduce until December 31, 2008, the duty on 
sorbic acid.
    H.R. 1698--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers 
preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.
    H.R. 1699--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
pepperoncini prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic 
acid.
    H.R. 1700--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers 
preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.
    H.R. 1701--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
pepperoncini prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid in 
concentrations at 0.5% or greater.
    H.R. 1702--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
pepperoncini prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic 
acid in concentrations less than 0.5%.
    H.R. 1715--A bill to reduce until December 31, 2008, the duty on 
PDCB (p-Dichlorobenzene).
    H.R. 1724--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Asulam sodium salt.
    H.R. 1725--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloral.
    H.R. 1726--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Imidacloprid 
Technical.
    H.R. 1727--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Triadimefon.
    H.R. 1732--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Liquid Crystal 
Device (LCD) panel assemblies for use in LCD projection type 
televisions.
    H.R. 1733--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns 
for high definition cathode ray tubes (CRTs).
    H.R. 1734--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Liquid Crystal 
Device (LCD) panel assemblies for use in LCD direct view televisions.
    H.R. 1752--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Polyethylene 
HE2591.
    H.R. 1775--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Thiacloprid.
    H.R. 1777--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrimethanil.
    H.R. 1778--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Foramsulfuron.
    H.R. 1779--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Fenamidone.
    H.R. 1780--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclanilide 
Technical.
    H.R. 1781--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on para-
Benzoquinone.
    H.R. 1782--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on palmitic acid.
    H.R. 1783--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Anisidine.
    H.R. 1784--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tetrakis.
    H.R. 1785--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-Xylidine.
    H.R. 1786--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
CroTonaldehyde.
    H.R. 1787--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on t-Butyl 
acrylate.
    H.R. 1788--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on propyl 
gallate.
    H.R. 1799--A bill to extend the duty suspension on ORGASOL 
polyamide powders.
    H.R. 1802--A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to 
the marking of imported live bovine animals.
    H.R. 1813--A bill to require the payment of interest on amounts 
owed by the United States pursuant to the reliquidation of certain 
entries under the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 and the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004.
    H.R. 1824--A bill to provide for the duty-free entry of certain 
tramway cars and associated spare parts for use by the city of 
Portland, Oregon.
    H.R. 1826--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
Chlorobenzyl chloride.
    H.R. 1827--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
(Z)-(1RS,3RS)-3-(2-Chloro-3,3,3-trifluro-1-propenyl)-2,2- 
imethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid.
    H.R. 1828--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
(S)-Alpha-Hydroxy-3-phenoxybenzeneacetonitrile.
    H.R. 1829--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Butanedioic 
acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-1-
piperidineethanol.
    H.R. 1830--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 3-amino-2-
(sulfato-ethyl sulfonyl) ethyl benzamide.
    H.R. 1831--A bill to extend the duty suspension on MUB 738 INT.
    H.R. 1832--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 5-amino-N-(2-
hydroxyethyl)-2,3-xylenesulfonamide.
    H.R. 1833--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of 
1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-triamine,N,N-[1,2-ethane-diyl-bis [ [ [4,6-bis-
[butyl (1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2-yl] 
imino]-3,1-propanediyl] ] bis[N,N-dibutyl-N,N-bis(1,2,2,6,6-
pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)- and Butanedioic acid, dimethylester polymer 
with 4-hyroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-1-piperdine ethanol.
    H.R. 1838--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3-Cyclohexene-
1-carboxylic acid, 6-[(di-2-propenylamino)carbonyl]-,(1R,6R)-rel-, 
reaction products with pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrefluoroethylene 
telomer, ammonium salt.
    H.R. 1839--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Glycine, N,N-
Bis[2-hydroxy-3-(2-propenyloxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt, reaction 
products with ammonium hydroxide and pentafluoroiodoethane-
tetrafluoroethylyene telomer.
    H.R. 1840--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5,5-bis[(y,w-
perfluoroC4-20alkylthio)methyl]-2-hydroxy-2-oxo -1,3,2-
dioxaphosphorinane, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4-
20alkylthio)methyl]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, di-ammonium salt and 
Di-[2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4-20alkylthio)methyl]]-3-hydroxy proply 
phosphate, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4-
20alkylthio)methyl]-1,3-di-(dihydro genphosphate)-propane, tetra-
ammonium salt.
    H.R. 1841--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1(3H)-
Isobenzofuranone, 3,3-bis(2-methyl-1-octyl-1H-indol-3-yl).
    H.R. 1842--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of 
Poly[[6-[(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4 
diyl][(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]-1,6-exanediy [(2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)imino]]) and Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl)sebaceate.
    H.R. 1843--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MCPA.
    H.R. 1844--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bronate 
Advanced.
    H.R. 1845--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil 
Octanoate Tech.
    H.R. 1846--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil 
MEO.
    H.R. 1848--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bitumen-coated polyethylene sleeves specifically designed to protect 
in-ground wood posts.
    H.R. 1851--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nylon 
woolpacks used to package wool.
    H.R. 1854--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on magnesium zinc 
aluminum hydroxide carbonate hydrate.
    H.R. 1855--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
magnesium aluminum hydroxide carbonate hydrate.
    H.R. 1856--A bill to extend the temporary duty suspension on C12-18 
Alkenes.
    H.R. 1857--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
polytetramethylene ether glycol.
    H.R. 1858--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
cis-3-Hexen-1-ol.
    H.R. 1877--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on hydraulic 
control units.
    H.R. 1878--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on shield asy-
steering gear.
    H.R. 1880--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-
Dichloroaniline.
    H.R. 1881--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Acetylbutyrolactone.
    H.R. 1882--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Alkylketone.
    H.R. 1883--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Cyfluthrin 
(Baythroid).
    H.R. 1884--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Beta-
cyfluthrin.
    H.R. 1885--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin.
    H.R. 1886--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopropane-
1,1-dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester.
    H.R. 1887--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Spiroxamine.
    H.R. 1888--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Spiromesifen.
    H.R. 1889--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Ethoprop.
    H.R. 1890--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Propiconazole.
    H.R. 1891--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-
Chlorobenzaldehyde.
    H.R. 1892--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Oxadiazon.
    H.R. 1893--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
Chlorobenzyl chloride.
    H.R. 1894--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on NaHP.
    H.R. 1895--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Iprodione.
    H.R. 1896--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Fosetyl-Al.
    H.R. 1897--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Flufenacet (FOE Hydroxy).
    H.R. 1899--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphorus 
Thiochloride.
    H.R. 1900--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Methanol, sodium salt.
    H.R. 1901--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on 
Trifloxystrobin.
    H.R. 1903--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on phosphoric 
acid, lanthanum salt, cerium terbium-doped.
    H.R. 1904--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on lutetium 
oxide.
    H.R. 1906--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on ACM.
    H.R. 1907--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin.
    H.R. 1908--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Thidiazuron.
    H.R. 1909--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Flutolanil.
    H.R. 1910--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Resmethrin.
    H.R. 1911--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Clothianidin.
    H.R. 1913--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ACRYPET UT100.
    H.R. 1914--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to provide that the calculation of the duty imposed on 
imported cherries that are provisionally preserved does not include the 
weight of the preservative materials of the cherries.
    H.R. 1915--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on diethyl ketone.
    H.R. 1916--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Amino-1-
[2,6-dichloro-4- (tri fluoro methyl)phenyl]-4-[(1R,S)-(tri 
fluoromethyl)-sulfiny] -1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile.
    H.R. 1917--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,3-
Pyridinedicarboxylic acid.
    H.R. 1918--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 80% 2,3-
Dimethylbutylnitrile and 20% toluene.
    H.R. 1919--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,3-
Quinolinedicarboxylic acid.
    H.R. 1920--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-
Chlorophenylglycine.
    H.R. 1921--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,5-
Difluoroaniline.
    H.R. 1922--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-Dibromo-5-
dimethyl-hydantoin.
    H.R. 1923--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on booster and 
master cyl asy-brake.
    H.R. 1924--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain 
transaxles.
    H.R. 1925--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on converter asy.
    H.R. 1926--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on module and 
bracket asy-power steering.
    H.R. 1927--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on unit asy-
battery hi volt.
    H.R. 1928--A bill to allow the entry of certain United States-
origin defense articles into bonded warehouses and foreign-trade zones.
    H.R. 1934--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain vinyl 
chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers.
    H.R. 1935--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Clomazone.
    H.R. 1936--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Flonicamid.
    H.R. 1937--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bifenthrin.
    H.R. 1938--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloropivaloyl 
Chloride.
    H.R. 1941--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on triethylene 
glycol bis[3-(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methyl phenyl)propionate].
    H.R. 1944--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain 
articles of natural cork.
    H.R. 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 1947--A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain 
entries of soundspa clock radios.
    H.R. 1948--A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain 
entries of aquascape relaxation bubble lights.
    H.R. 1949--A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain 
entries of candles.
    H.R. 1959--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic 
acid.
    H.R. 1962--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
cyclopentanone.
    H.R. 1963--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Mesotrione 
Technical.
    H.R. 1964--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Malonic Acid-
Dinitrile 50% NMP.
    H.R. 1965--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations 
of NOA 466510.
    H.R. 1966--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DEMBB 
Distilled-ISO Tank.
    H.R. 1967--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Acid black 
172.
    H.R. 1968--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain 
chemical mixture.
    H.R. 1969--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on N,N'-hexane-
1,6-diylbis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl opionamide)).
    H.R. 1970--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7,7'' - [(2-methyl-1,5-pentanediyl) 
bis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) imino]] bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-
[(4-methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium sodium salt.
    H.R. 1971--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid,5-[[4-chloro-6-[[3-[[8-[4-fluoro-6- 
(methylphenylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-1-hydroxy-3,6- disulfo-2-
naphthalenyl]azo]-4-sulfophenyl],amino]-1,3,5-tria in-2-yl]amino]-4-
hydroxy-3-[(1-sulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo]-sodium salt.
    H.R. 1976--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Gamma Methyl 
Ionone.
    H.R. 1978--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
acrylic fiber tow.
    H.R. 1979--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
acrylic fiber tow.
    H.R. 1990--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MKH 6561 
Isocyanate.
    H.R. 1991--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty with 
respect to Diclofop methyl.
    H.R. 1992--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on endosulfan.
    H.R. 1997--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to clarify the article description relating to certain 
monchrome glass envelopes, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 2003--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to remove the 100 percent tariff imposed on Roquefort 
cheese.
    H.R. 2009--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tetraconazole.
    H.R. 2010--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on M-Alcohol.
    H.R. 2015--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
machines for use in the assembly of motorcycle wheels.
    H.R. 2016--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on glass bulbs, 
designed for sprinkler systems and other release devices, filled with 
liquid that expands and breaks the bulb at a release temperature 
predetermined by the manufacturer.
    H.R. 2019--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pyriproxyfen.
    H.R. 2020--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Uniconazole.
    H.R. 2021--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acephate.
    H.R. 2022--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bispyribac-
sodium.
    H.R. 2023--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dinotefuran.
    H.R. 2024--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Etoxazole.
    H.R. 2025--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 
Fenpropathrin.
    H.R. 2026--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bioallethrin.
    H.R. 2027--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin.
    H.R. 2028--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Esbioallethrin.
    H.R. 2029--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Resmethrin.
    H.R. 2030--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tetramethrin.
    H.R. 2031--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Tralemethrin.
    H.R. 2032--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on flumiclorac 
pentyl ester.
    H.R. 2033--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Flumioxazin.
    H.R. 2056--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid 
distillate.
    H.R. 2077--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Garenoxacin 
mesylate.
    H.R. 2078--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on butylated 
hydroxyethylbenzene.
    H.R. 2079--A bill to extend the temporary duty suspension on 
Ezetimibe.
    H.R. 2080--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Methidathion 
Technical.
    H.R. 2081--A bill to extend the duty suspension on difenoconazole.
    H.R. 2082--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Lambda-
Cyhalothrin.
    H.R. 2083--A bill to extend the duty suspension on cyprodinil.
    H.R. 2084--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Wakil XL.
    H.R. 2085--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Azoxystrobin 
Technical.
    H.R. 2086--A bill to extend the duty suspension on mucochloric 
acid.
    H.R. 2091--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxy-2-
methyldiphenylamine.
    H.R. 2093--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Methylhydroquinone.
    H.R. 2094--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on thionyl 
chloride.
    H.R. 2095--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-fluoro-2-
nitro benzene.
    H.R. 2096--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain high tenacity rayon filament yarn.
    H.R. 2114--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-propene-2-
methyl homopolymer.
    H.R. 2115--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acronal-S-600.
    H.R. 2116--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Lucirin TPO.
    H.R. 2117--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Astacin Finish 
PUM.
    H.R. 2118--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Sokalan PG 
IME.
    H.R. 2119--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Paliotol 
Yellow L 2140 HD.
    H.R. 2120--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Lycopene 10% 
25kg 4G 3.
    H.R. 2128--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cosmetic bags 
with a flexible outer surface of reinforced or laminated polyvinyl 
chloride (PVC).
    H.R. 2135--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of 
methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosul 
fonyl]benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron) and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 2136--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Ethyl 4,5-
dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-1,2-oxazole-3-carboxylate (Isoxadifen-ethyl).
    H.R. 2137--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Cyclopropyl-
4-(2-methylsulfonyl-4-trifluoromethylbenxoyl)i soxazole (Isoxaflutole).
    H.R. 2138--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of 
methyl 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-5-oxo-3-propoxy-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-y 
l)carboxamidosulfonylbenzoate; sodium (4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-5-oxo-3-
propoxy-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylc arbonyl) (2-methoxy 
carbonylphenylsulfonyl) azanide (Propoxycarbazone), methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-
(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) ureidosulfonyl[benzoate, sodium 
salt (Mesosulfuron-methyl), and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 2139--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Methyl 2-
[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-ylcarbamoyl)sulfamoyl]-G6a-(met 
hanesulfonamido)-p-toluate whether or not mixed with application 
adjuvants.
    H.R. 2140--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of 
N,N-dimethyl-2[3-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl ]-4-
formylaminobenzamide (Foramsulfuron), methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-
methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosul fonyl]benzoate, sodium salt 
(Iodosulfuron), and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 2141--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1-Propanone, 
2-methyl-1-[4- (methylthio)phenyl]-2-(4- morpholinyl)-(9cl).
    H.R. 2142--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,6-
Hexanediamine, N,N'- bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinyl)-, polymer 
with 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl- 1-
butanamine and N-butyl- 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidinamine.
    H.R. 2143--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Anthra[2,1,9-
mna]naphth[2,3-h]acridine-5,10,15(16H)-trione,3 -[(9,10-dihydro-9,10-
dioxo-1-anthracenyl)amino].
    H.R. 2144--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cobaltate(1-), 
bis[3-[[1-(3- chlorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3- methyl-5-(oxo-.kappa.O)-1H- 
pyrazol-4-yl]azo-.kappa.N1[-4-. (hydroxy-.kappa.O)- benzenesulfonamid- 
ato(2-)]-, sodium.
    H.R. 2145--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMQ.
    H.R. 2146--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-ADPA.
    H.R. 2147--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkanox MB 
(MBI).
    H.R. 2148--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulcuren UPKA 
1988.
    H.R. 2149--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vullcanox 4010 
NA/LG.
    H.R. 2150--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkazon AFS/
LG.
    H.R. 2151--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkacit MOZ/
LG and Vulkacit MOZ/SG.
    H.R. 2152--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkanox ZMB-
2/C5.
    H.R. 2153--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Anisic 
Aldehyde.
    H.R. 2154--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Methyl 
Salicylate.
    H.R. 2155--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 
Octanediol.
    H.R. 2156--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 2, 2-Dimethyl-3-
(3-methylphenyl) propanal.
    H.R. 2157--A bill to extend the duty suspension on p-
Methylacetophenone.
    H.R. 2158--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Cyclohexadec-8-
en-l-one.
    H.R. 2159--A bill to extend the duty suspension on methanol, sodium 
salt.
    H.R. 2160--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 2-
Phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulfonic acid.
    H.R. 2161--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 
Pentanediol.
    H.R. 2162--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Methyl 
cinnamate.
    H.R. 2163--A bill to extend the duty suspension on cyclohexanol.
    H.R. 2164--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Thymol.
    H.R. 2165--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Menthyl 
anthranilate.
    H.R. 2166--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Frescolat MGA.
    H.R. 2167--A bill to extend the duty suspension on o-tert-
Butylcyclohexanol.
    H.R. 2168--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 5-Methyl-2-
(methylethyl) cyclohexyl-2-hydroxypropanoate.
    H.R. 2169--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cohedur RL.
    H.R. 2170--A bill to extend the duty suspension on isothiocyanate.
    H.R. 2171--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Vulkalent E/C.
    H.R. 2172--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on MBTS.
    H.R. 2173--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 
Hexanediol.
    H.R. 2175--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rayon 
staple fibers.
    H.R. 2179--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on hexanedioic 
acid, polymer with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine.
    H.R. 2198--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fixed ratio 
speed changers for truck-mounted concrete mixers.
    H.R. 2212--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Trinexapac-Ethyl.
    H.R. 2213--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations 
of Prosulfuron.
    H.R. 2214--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations 
of triasulfuron and dicamba.
    H.R. 2215--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations 
of triasulfuron.
    H.R. 2220--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pontamine 
Green 2B.
    H.R. 2221--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Mesamoll.
    H.R. 2222--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayderm Bottom 
10 UD.
    H.R. 2223--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayderm Finish 
DLH.
    H.R. 2224--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Levagard DMPP.
    H.R. 2225--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayderm Bottom 
DLV.
    H.R. 2226--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers.
    H.R. 2227--A bill to extend the duty suspension on ortho-
phenylphenol.
    H.R. 2228--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 
Iminodisuccinate.
    H.R. 2241--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Lewatit.
    H.R. 2242--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain ion-exchange resins.
    H.R. 2243--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6 
Dichlorotoluene.
    H.R. 2244--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Glyoxylic Acid 
50%.
    H.R. 2245--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
paraChlorophenol.
    H.R. 2246--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on allethrin.
    H.R. 2252--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin.
    H.R. 2253--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyazofamid.
    H.R. 2254--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin.
    H.R. 2255--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on on Flonicamid.
    H.R. 2256--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Zeta-
Cypermethrin.
    H.R. 2260--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
adsorbent resins.
    H.R. 2261--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion 
exchange resin.
    H.R. 2262--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion 
exchange resin.
    H.R. 2263--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 10'10' 
Oxybisphenoxarsine.
    H.R. 2264--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Copper 8-
quinolinolate.
    H.R. 2265--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion 
exchange resin.
    H.R. 2266--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion 
exchange resin.
    H.R. 2267--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a certain ion 
exchange resin powder.
    H.R. 2268--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a certain ion 
exchange resin powder. H.R. 2269--A bill to extend the temporary 
suspension of duty on helium. H.R. 2270--A bill to suspend temporarily 
the duty on Desmodur E 14. H.R. 2271--A bill to suspend temporarily the 
duty on Desmodur, IL.
    H.R. 2272--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur HL.
    H.R. 2273--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur VP LS 
2253.
    H.R. 2274--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur R-E.
    H.R. 2275--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Walocel MW 
3000 PFV.
    H.R. 2276--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TSME.
    H.R. 2277--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Walocel VP-M 
20660.
    H.R. 2278--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Citral.
    H.R. 2279--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on XAMA 2.
    H.R. 2280--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on XAMA 7.
    H.R. 2281--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Ethylhexyl 
4-methoxycinnamate.
    H.R. 2282--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-
Methoxybenzaldehyde.
    H.R. 2285--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain bags for toys.
    H.R. 2286--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
cases for certain children's products.
    H.R. 2287--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain children's products.
    H.R. 2288--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cases 
for toys.
    H.R. 2289--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cases 
for toys.
    H.R. 2302--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on certain 12-
volt batteries.
    H.R. 2303--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on certain light 
absorbing photo dyes.
    H.R. 2309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Aniline 2.5 
Di-sulphonic Acid.
    H.R. 2310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,4-
Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Polymer With N,N-Bis (2-Aminoethyl) -1,2-
Ethanediamine, Cyclized, Me Sulfates.
    H.R. 2311--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain high-performance loudspeakers.
    H.R. 2312--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain R-core transformers.
    H.R. 2313--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Sulfur Blue 7.
    H.R. 2314--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on reduced vat 
blue 43.
    H.R. 2315--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on sulfur black 
1.
    H.R. 2316--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown 
GN Liquid Crude.
    H.R. 2336--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
DMSIP.
    H.R. 2371--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
bitolylene diisocyanate (TODI).
    H.R. 2372--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
(Methoxycarbonyl)benzylsulfonamide.
    H.R. 2373--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
chlorobenzenesulfonamide.
    H.R. 2374--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ESPI.
    H.R. 2375--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on CMBSI.
    H.R. 2377--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain 
automotive catalytic converter mats.
    H.R. 2380--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on gemifloxacin, 
gemifloxacin mesylate, and gemifloxacin mesylate sesquihydrate.
    H.R. 2381--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on PHBA.
    H.R. 2382--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Butralin.
    H.R. 2394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Spirodiclofen.
    H.R. 2395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Propamocarb 
HCL (Previcur).
    H.R. 2396--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Imidacloprid pesticides.
    H.R. 2397--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Trifloxystrobin.
    H.R. 2402--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur, IL.
    H.R. 2403--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetone.
    H.R. 2404--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on IPN 
(Isophthalonitrile).
    H.R. 2405--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on NOA 466510 
Technical.
    H.R. 2406--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Hexythiazox 
Technical.
    H.R. 2424--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 11-
Aminoundecanoic acid.
    H.R. 2430--A bill to extend the duty reduction on ethylene/
tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE).
    H.R. 2431--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,10 
Diaminodecane.
    H.R. 2432--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Crelan (self-
blocked cycloaliphatic polyuretdione).
    H.R. 2433--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Aspirin.
    H.R. 2434--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Baytron C-R.
    H.R. 2435--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Baytron M.
    H.R. 2436--A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on Baytron and 
Baytron P.
    H.R. 2437--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur BL XP 
2468.
    H.R. 2438--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Hydrazine 
Hydrate.
    H.R. 2439--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain flame 
retardant plasticizers.
    H.R. 2440--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Baypure DS.
    H.R. 2441--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
BOPA.
    H.R. 2442--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Thionyl Chloride.
    H.R. 2443--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Ammonium Bifluoride.
    H.R. 2444--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bayowet C4.
    H.R. 2445--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
PHBA.
    H.R. 2446--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Mondur P.
    H.R. 2447--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on P-
Phenylphenol.
    H.R. 2448--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
DEMT.
    H.R. 2449--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Bayowet FT-248.
    H.R. 2450--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
PNTOSA.
    H.R. 2451--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Baysilone Fluid.
    H.R. 2452--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Desmodur.
    H.R. 2453--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur HL.
    H.R. 2454--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on D-Mannose.
    H.R. 2459--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
yarn of combed Kashmir (cashmere) and yarn of camel hair.
    H.R. 2460--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain yarn of carded Kashmir (cashmere).
    H.R. 2461--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain Kashmir (cashmere) hair.
    H.R. 2462--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel 
hair.
    H.R. 2463--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on waste of camel 
hair.
    H.R. 2464--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel 
hair.
    H.R. 2465--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on woven fabric 
containing vicuna hair.
    H.R. 2466--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel 
hair.
    H.R. 2467--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
fine animal hair of Kashmir (cashmere) goats.
    H.R. 2468--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on noils of camel 
hair.
    H.R. 2469--A bill to extend temporarily the duty suspension on 
certain semi-manufactured forms of gold.
    H.R. 2473--A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.
    H.R. 2477--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2478--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2479--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2480--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2481--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2482--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2483--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
bicycle parts.
    H.R. 2492--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Crotonic Acid.
    H.R. 2493--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Glyoxylic Acid 
50.
    H.R. 2494--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic 
acid, ethyl ester.
    H.R. 2495--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic 
Acid, Sodium Salt.
    H.R. 2496--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
3,6,9-Trioxaundecanedioic acid.
    H.R. 2497--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Acetamiprid Technical.
    H.R. 2501--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-
2,2-imethyl-,(2-meth yl(1,1-biphenyl) -3-yl)methyl ester, (z).
    H.R. 2502--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphonic 
acid (2-chloroethyl) (Ethephon).
    H.R. 2503--A bill to suspend the duty on Iprodione.
    H.R. 2504--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Cyclohexen-
1-one, and 2-(1-(((3-chloro-2- propenyl)oxy)imino) propyl)-5-(2-
(ethylthio) propyl)-3-hydroxy (Clethodim).
    H.R. 2505--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoic acid, 
o- and ((3-(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)-ureido)sulfonyl)-, methylester 
(Sulfometuron methyl).
    H.R. 2506--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethyl-, 3-
phenoxybenzyl ester, ( +-)-,(cis,trans).
    H.R. 2507--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoic acid, 
2-(((((4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)- 
carbonyl)amino)sulfonyl)-, methyl ester.
    H.R. 2522--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on filter blue 
green photo dye.
    H.R. 2523--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on ammonium 
bifluoride.
    H.R. 2524--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Bis(4-
fluorophenyl) methanone.
    H.R. 2532--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on urea, polymer 
with formaldehyde (Pergopak).
    H.R. 2535--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on polymethine 
photo-sensitizing dyes.
    H.R. 2536--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 4-
Hexylresorcinol.
    H.R. 2537--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on certain 
organic pigments and dyes.
    H.R. 2538--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on a 
certain ultraviolet dye.
    H.R. 2539--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain cathode-ray tubes.
    H.R. 2540--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain cathode ray tubes.
    H.R. 2542--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on low expansion 
laboratory glass.
    H.R. 2543--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on stoppers, 
lids, and other closures.
    H.R. 2544--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
benzoic acid, 2-amino-4-[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl 
ester.
    H.R. 2545--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acid Blue 80.
    H.R. 2546--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Pigment Red 185.
    H.R. 2547--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Solvent blue 124.
    H.R. 2548--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Brown 
25.
    H.R. 2549--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 
188.
    H.R. 2550--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Pigment Yellow 154.
    H.R. 2551--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Pigment Yellow 175.
    H.R. 2552--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 
213.
    H.R. 2556--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
    H.R. 2557--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
    H.R. 2573--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cuprammonium 
rayon yarn.
    H.R. 2575--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Methyl 
thioglycolate (MTG).
    H.R. 2576--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Ethyl 
pyruvate.
    H.R. 2577--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Indoxacarb.
    H.R. 2578--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl 
carbonate.
    H.R. 2579--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Chloro-1-
indanone (EK179).
    H.R. 2580--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Methyl-4-
trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate (DPX-KL540).
    H.R. 2581--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on the formulated 
product containing mixtures of the active ingredients 5-methyl-5-(4-
phenoxyphenyl)-3-(phenylamino)-2,4-oxazolidi edione] (famoxadone) and 
2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide (cymoxanil) 
and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 2582--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ortho nitro 
aniline.
    H.R. 2583--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Decanedioic 
acid, Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl).
    H.R. 2584--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoxazole, 
2,2-(2,5-thiophenediyl)bis(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl).
    H.R. 2585--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 2methyl-4,6-
bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol.
    H.R. 2586--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 4-[[4,6-
bis(octylthio)-1,3,5-traizine-2-yl]amino]-2,6-bis(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenol.
    H.R. 2589--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain filament yarns.
    H.R. 2590--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
certain filament yarns.
    H.R. 2591--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain yarn 
(other than sewing thread) of synthetic staple fibers, not put up for 
retail sale.
    H.R. 2596--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on modified steel 
leaf spring leaves.
    H.R. 2597--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on suspension 
system stabilizer bars.
    H.R. 2598--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on steel leaf 
spring leaves.
    H.R. 2602--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Formulations of 
Azoxystrobin.
    H.R. 2603--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin 
Technical.
    H.R. 2604--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Formulations of 
Pinoxaden/Cloquintocet-Mexyl.
    H.R. 2605--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations 
of Difenoconazole/Mefenoxam.
    H.R. 2606--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Fludioxonil 
Technical.
    H.R. 2607--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations 
of Clodinafop-propargyl.
    H.R. 2608--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Emamectin 
Benzoate Technical.
    H.R. 2609--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cloquintocet 
Technical.
    H.R. 2610--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Mefenoxam 
Technical.
    H.R. 2611--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Cyproconazole 
Technical.
    H.R. 2612--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pinoxaden 
Technical.
    H.R. 2613--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations 
of Tralkoxydim.
    H.R. 2614--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Propiconazole 
Technical - Bulk.
    H.R. 2615--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Permethrin 
Technical.
    H.R. 2624--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain items 
and to reduce temporarily the duty on certain items.
    H.R. 2632--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3'-
Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride.
    H.R. 2675--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on TMC114.
    H.R. 2676--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
chemicals and chemical mixtures.
    H.R. 2677--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
chemicals.
    H.R. 2678--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of 
(1A1B1A)-(cis and trans)-1-(2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)- 4-propyl-1,3-
dioxalan-2-yl)methyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole (Propiconazole) and application 
adjuvants.
    H.R. 2696--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino).
    H.R. 2697--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(2-), 
[2,4-dihydro-4-[[2-(hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-met hyl-3H-
pyrazol-3-onato(2-)-kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-( 4-methylphenyl)-
5-(oxo-kO)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydro xy-kO)-5-
nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, disodium.
    H.R. 2698--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,8-bis(phenylthio).
    H.R. 2699--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3,6-bis[[5-[[4-chloro-6-[methyl[2-
(meth ylamino)-2-oxoethyl]amino]-1,3,5-tria zin-2-yl]amino]-2-
sulfophenyl]azo]-5 -hydroxy-, lithium potassium sodium salt.
    H.R. 2700--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7-[(5-chloro-2,6-difluoro-4-
pyrimidinyl)amino]-4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy-2-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium 
salt.
    H.R. 2701--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-6-[[2-methoxy-5-[[2-
(sulfo oxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-3-[[4-[[2-
(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo -, tetrasodium salt.
    H.R. 2702--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-5-hydroxy-3,6-bis[[4-[[2-
(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo]-, tetra sodium salt.
    H.R. 2703--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on [2,2'-Bi-1H-
indole]-3,3 -diol-, potassium sodium salt.
    H.R. 2704--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3-
Pyridinecarbonitrile, 5-[(2-cyano-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-2-[[2-(2-
hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] amino]-4-methyl-6-(phenylamino).
    H.R. 2705--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, 
cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2-benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-, 
pentyl ester.
    H.R. 2706--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Benzenesulfonic acid, [(9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo-1,4-
anthracenediyl)bis[imino[3-(2- methylpropyl)-3,1-propanediyl]]]bis-, 
disodium salt.
    H.R. 2707--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, 
[4-(2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-phenylbenzo[1,2-b:4,5-b']difuran -3-
yl)phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl ester.
    H.R. 2708--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Benzo[1,2-
b:4,5-b ]difuran-2,6-dione, 3-phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl).
    H.R. 2709--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Ethanesulfonic 
acid, 2-[[[2,5-dichloro-4-[(2-methyl-1H-indol-3-
yl)azo]phenyl]sulfonyl]amino]-, monoso dium salt.
    H.R. 2710--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,7-
Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 5-[[4-chloro-6-[(3-sulfophenyl)amino]-
1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino] -4-hydroxy-3- [[4-[[2-
(sulfooxy)ethyl]sulfonyl]phenyl]azo],sodium salt.
    H.R. 2711--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3,6-
Naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-
[[4-[[3-[(aminocarb onyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amio] -6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]- - chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt).
    H.R. 2712--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-
Anthracenedione, 1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino).
    H.R. 2713--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Anthracenesulfonic acid, 4-[[3-(acetylamino)phenyl]amino]-1-amino-9,10-
dihydro-9,10-d ioxo-, monosodium salt.
    H.R. 2714--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, 
[4-[2,6-dihydro-2,6-dioxo-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)benzo[1,2-b:4,5 -b 
]difuran-3-yl]phenoxy]-, 2-ethoxyethyl ester.
    H.R. 2764--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2 
methyl 5 nitrobenzenesulfonic acid.
    H.R. 2765--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-
cresidine sulfonic acid.
    H.R. 2766--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,4 
disulfo benzaldehyde.
    H.R. 2767--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on n 
ethyl N (3-sulfobenzyl) aniline.
    H.R. 2768--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on m-
hydroxy benzaldehyde.
    H.R. 2769--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2 
amino 5 sulfobenzoic acid.
    H.R. 2770--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2 
amino 6 nitro phenol 4 sulfonic acid.
    H.R. 2771--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,5 
bis [(1,3 dioxobutyl) amino] benzene sulfonic acid.
    H.R. 2772--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4 
[(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid, monosodium salt.
    H.R. 2773--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on oleoresin 
turmeric.
    H.R. 2774--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on basic yellow 
40 chloride based.
    H.R. 2775--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on direct yellow 
119.
    H.R. 2776--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4 
[(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid.
    H.R. 2777--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on oleoresin 
paprika.
    H.R. 2781--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Naugard 412S.
    H.R. 2782--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Triacetonamine.
    H.R. 2783--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Ipconazole.
    H.R. 2784--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Omite Tech.
    H.R. 2785--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pantera 
Technical.
    H.R. 2806--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Paraquat 
Dichloride.
    H.R. 2809--A bill to temporarily suspend the duty on Carfentrazone.
    H.R. 2810--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-
(Ethylsulfonly)-2-pyridinesulfonamide.
    H.R. 2816--A bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain tuna.
    H.R. 2817--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
    H.R. 2818--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
leather basketballs.
    H.R. 2819--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
    H.R. 2820--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
    H.R. 2821--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
synthetic basketballs.
    H.R. 2825--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Chloro-3-
[[3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-1,3-dioxopropyl-]amino]-do decyl ester.
    H.R. 2833--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on NaMBT.
    H.R. 2836--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Allyl 
isosulfocynate.
    H.R. 2837--A bill to extend the duty suspension on sodium methylate 
powder.
    H.R. 2838--A bill to extend the duty suspension on Trimethyl cyclo 
hexanol.
    H.R 2839--A bill to extend the duty suspension on 2,2-Dimethyl-3-
(3-methylphenyl)proponal.
    H.R. 2845--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain plain 
woven fabrics.
    H.R. 2847--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 1,3-
Benzenedicarboxamide, N, N-Bis (2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-.
    H.R. 2848--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on reaction 
products of phosphorus trichloride with 1,1-biphenyl and 2,4-bis(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenol.
    H.R. 2849--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on preparations 
based on ethanediamide, N-(2-ethoxyphenyl)-N-(4-isodecylphenyl)-.
    H.R. 2850--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-
(3-dodecyl-2,5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine.
    H.R. 2851--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 3-Dodecyl-1-
(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-2,5-pyrrolid nedione.
    H.R. 2852--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 
Tetraacetylethylenediamine.
    H.R. 2853--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on sodium 
petroleum sulfonate.
    H.R. 2854--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on esters and 
sodium esters of parahydroxybenzoic acid.
    H.R. 2855--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Oxalic 
Anilide.
    H.R. 2856--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
inflatable balls.
    H.R. 2879--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on P Tolulene 
Sulfonyl Chloride.
    H.R. 2880--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3 
Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride.
    H.R. 2881--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-Amino 
Benzamide.
    H.R. 2882--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-Cloro 
Aniline.
    H.R. 2883--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on p-Chloro-o-
Nitro Aniline.
    H.R. 2884--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3 Chloro-4-
Methylanine.
    H.R. 2885--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetoacet-o-
Chloro Anilide.
    H.R. 2886--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Acetoacet-p-
Anisidine.
    H.R. 2887--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Alpha Oxy 
Naphthoic Acid.
    H.R. 2888--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Green 
7 Crude, not ready for use as a pigment.
    H.R. 2889--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3 Diamino 
Isoindoline.
    H.R. 2890--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,8 
Naphthalamide.
    H.R. 2896--A bill to remove the 100 percent tariff imposed on 
roasted chicory and other roasted coffee substitutes.
    H.R. 2906--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on linuron.
    H.R. 2907--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on N,N-
dimethylpiperidinium chloride.
    H.R. 2908--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on diuron.
    H.R. 2909--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on formulated 
product KROVAR IDF.
    H.R. 2913--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Thiamethoxam 
Technical.
    H.R. 2914--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Triasulfuron 
Technical.
    H.R. 2915--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Brodifacoum 
Technical.
    H.R. 2916--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pymetrozine 
Technical.
    H.R. 2917--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulations 
of Thiamethoxam, Difenoconazole, Fludioxinil, and Mefenoxam.
    H.R. 2918--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Trifloxysulfuron-Sodium Technical.
    H.R. 2919--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on diisopropyl 
succinate.
    H.R. 2920--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-di-tert-
butyl-6-(5-chlorobenzotriazol-2-yl)phenol.
    H.R. 2921--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of 
Butanedioic acid, dimethylester, polymer with 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-1-piperidine ethanol and 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-
triamine,N,N'''-[1,2-ethane-diyl-bis [ [ [4,6-bis-[butyl (1,2,2,6,6-
pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl)amino]-1,3,5-triazine-2 yl] imino]-3,1-
propanediyl] ] bis[N',N''- dibutyl-N',N''-bis(1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-
piperidinyl)-.
    H.R. 2922--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 4-chloro-
benzonitrile.
    H.R. 2954--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on manganese 
metal flake containing at least 99.5 percent by weight of manganese.
    H.R. 2972--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 6-[(2,4-diaminophenyl)azo]-3-[[4-[[4-[[7-
[(2,4-diaminophenyl azo]-1-hydroxy-3-sulfo-2-
naphthalenyl]azo]phenyl]amino]-3- sulfophenyl]azo]-4-hydroxy-, 
trisodium salt.
    H.R. 2973--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Methylene Bis-
Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol.
    H.R. 2974--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Bis-
Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenol Triazine.
    H.R. 2975--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
Benzenesulfonic acid, 2,2-[(1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)bis[imino(6-fluoro-
1,3,5-tria ine-4,2-diyl)imino[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4,1-phenylene]az 
]]bis[5-[(4-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium salt.
    H.R. 2976--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(2-), 
[3-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-4-[[2-(hydroxy-.kappa.O)-1-naphthale 
yl]azo-.kappa.N2]-1-naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][1-[[2-(hydroxy kappa.O)-
5-[4-methoxyphenyl)azo]phenyl]azo-.kappa.N2]-2-nap hthalenolato(2-
)-.kappa.O]-, disodium.
    H.R. 2996--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims.
    H.R. 2997--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims.
    H.R. 2998--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims.
    H.R. 2999--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims.
    H.R. 3001--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims.
    H.R. 3002--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims.
    H.R. 3015--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2 benzylthio-
3-ethyl sulfonyl pyridine.
    H.R. 3016--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
carbamic acid.
    H.R. 3023--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-amino-4-
methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazine.
    H.R. 3024--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on formulated 
products containing mixtures of the active ingredient 2-chloro-N-[[(4-
methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2yl) amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide 
and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 3025--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 
Esfenvalerate.
    H.R. 3026--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-methyl-4-
methoxy-6-methylamino-1,3,5-triazine.
    H.R. 3027--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of 
sodium-2-chloro-6-[(4,6 dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)thio]benzoate and 
application adjuvants (pyrithiobac-sodium).
    H.R. 3028--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Methyl 2-
[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-tri zin-2-yl]-
amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate and application 
adjuvants.
    H.R. 3029--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Benzyl 
carbazate.
    H.R. 3030--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of N-
[[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsul onyl)-2-
pyridinesulfonamide and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 3033--A bill to extend the temporary reduction in duty on 
certain educational devices.
    H.R. 3066--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to provide separate tariff categories for certain tractor 
body parts.
    H.R. 3067--A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States to provide a new subheading for certain log forwarders 
used as motor vehicles for the transport of goods for duty-free 
treatment consistent with other agricultural use log handling 
equipment.
    H.R. 3089--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,3-bis(4-
Aminophenoxy)benzene (RODA).
    H.R. 3090--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Pyromellitic 
Dianhydride (PMDA).
    H.R. 3091--A bill to extend temporarily the duty suspension on 
4,4'-Oxydiphthalic Anhydride (ODPA).
    H.R. 3092--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on 4,4'-
Oxydianiline (ODA).
    H.R. 3093--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3',4,4'-
Biphenyltetracarboxylic Dianhydride (BPDA).
    H.R. 3105--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain aramid 
chopped fiber.
    H.R. 3106--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fabric woven 
with certain continuous filament wholly nylon type-66 textured yarns.
    H.R. 3112--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
decorative plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and 
architectural miniatures.
    H.R. 3113--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, 
with or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
    H.R. 3114--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
    H.R. 3115--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
clocks.
    H.R. 3116--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
    H.R. 3117--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
    H.R. 3118--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
    H.R. 3119--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
carfentazone ethyl.
    H.R. 3120--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain cores 
used in remanufacture.
    H.R. 3126--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain entries.
    H.R. 3210--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-
Amino-5-mercapto-1,2,4-triazole.
    H.R. 3211--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
748+-bromo-748+-nitrostyrene.
    H.R. 3212--A bill to the temporary suspension of duty on asulam 
sodium salt.
    H.R. 3213--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
diiodomethyl-p-tolylsulfone.
    H.R. 3214--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-
Propenoic acid, polymer with diethenylbenzene.
    H.R. 3215--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ADTP.
    H.R. 3216--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Benfluralin.
    H.R. 3217--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on DCBTF.
    H.R. 3218--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Noviflumuron.
    H.R. 3219--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on Cyhalofop.
    H.R. 3220--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 
parachlorobenzotrifluoride.
    H.R. 3221--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of 
insecticide.
    H.R. 3222--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
2,6-Dichloro aniline.
    H.R. 3223--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on a certain 
mixture of fungicide.
    H.R. 3224--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2-
Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9CI).
    H.R. 3225--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3, 
4-Dichlorobenzonitrile.
    H.R. 3226--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Styrene, ar-
ethyl-, polymer with divinylbenzene and styrene (6CI) beads with low 
ash.
    H.R. 3227--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2-
Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9CI).
    H.R. 3228--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
DEPCT.
    H.R. 3229--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on trifluralin.
    H.R. 3230--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
1,2-Benzenedicarboxaldehyde.
    H.R. 3231--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
DMDS.
    H.R. 3232--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of 
fungicide.
    H.R. 3233--A bill to extend the suspension of duty on trifluralin.
    H.R. 3234--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone.
    H.R. 3235--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid.
    H.R. 3236--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on certain 
mixtures of florasulam.
    H.R. 3237--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxy-acetic acid, di-methylamine salt.
    H.R. 3238--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
isoxaben.
    H.R. 3239--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
halofenozide.
    H.R. 3240--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
methoxyfenozide.
    H.R. 3241--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on myclobutanil.
    H.R. 3242--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
propanil.
    H.R. 3243--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
propiconazole.
    H.R. 3244--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
quinoline.
    H.R. 3245--A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on fluoroxypyr.
    H.R. 3246--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
tebufenozide.
    H.R. 3247--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
mixed isomers of 1,3-dichloropropene.
    H.R. 3257--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on biaxially 
oriented polypropylene dielectric film.
    H.R. 3258--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on biaxially 
oriented polyethylene terephthalate dielectric film.
    H.R. 3285--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on charge control 
agent 7.
    H.R. 3286--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet black 
820 liquid feed.
    H.R. 3287--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet cyan 1 
RO feed and pro-jet cyan OF 1 RO feed.
    H.R. 3288--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet 
magenta M700.
    H.R. 3289--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet jellow 
1G Stage.
    H.R. 3290--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet fast 
black 287 NA liquid feed.
    H.R. 3291--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet fast 
black 286 stage.
    H.R. 3292--A bill to extend the duty suspension on pro-jet black 
263 stage.
    H.R. 3293--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet cyan 
485 stage.
    H.R. 3294--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet black 
661 liquid feed.
    H.R. 3295--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet cyan 
854 liquid feed.
    H.R. 3303--A bill to suspend temporarily the deposit requirements 
and assessments of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on 
imports of CHQ wire rod covered by certain countervailing and 
antidumping duty orders.
    H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
    H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
    H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
    H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
    H.R. 3340--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Phenmedipham.
    H.R. 3341--A bill to suspend tempoarily the duty on Desmedipham.
    H.R. 3342--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
ethofumesate.
    H.R. 3343--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Nemacur VL.
    H.R. 3346--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2 benzylthio-
3-ethyl sulfonyl pyridine.
    H.R. 3353--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
    H.R. 3354--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
    H.R. 3355--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
    H.R. 3356--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
    H.R. 3357--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims relating to petroleum products.
    H.R. 3363--A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
drawback.
    H.R. 3371--A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain entries.
    H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
    H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
    H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
    H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
    H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
    H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
    H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
    H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
    H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
    H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
    H.R. 3414--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
refracting and reflecting telescopes.
    H.R. 3415--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on mixture of 
magnesium peroxide and magnesium oxide containing 35 percent magnesium 
peroxide.
    H.R. 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign 
affairs exemption to the rule making requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee 
for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Note: All Committee 
advisories and news releases are available on the World Wide Web 
athttp://waysandmeans.house.gov.

ADVISORY

FROM THE 
COMMITTEE
 ON WAYS 
AND 
MEANS

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                                CONTACT: (202) 225-6649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 05, 2005
No. TR-3 Revised

                   Shaw Announces Additional Bills on

                Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws

                and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

    Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced the addition 
of the following bills to the July 25 request for written comments on 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension bills.
      

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

      
    Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit 
for the record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of 
the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the 
Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ``109th 
Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http://
waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=17). Select the request 
for written comments for which you would like to submit, and click on 
the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the 
record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions, completing 
all informational forms and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an 
email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your 
interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to 
the email and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, 
in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close 
of business Friday, September 2, 2005. inally, please note that due to 
the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse 
sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, 
or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
      

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

      
    The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the 
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the 
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will 
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to 
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the 
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the 
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for 
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any 
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these 
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee 
files for review and use by the Committee.
      
    1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in 
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, 
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the 
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 
hearing record.
      
    2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not 
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be 
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting 
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for 
review and use by the Committee.
      
    3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, 
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A 
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name, 
company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
      

SUMMARY OF BILLS:

      
    H.R. 915--A bill to authorize the President to take certain actions 
to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan.
    H.R. 3176--A bill to amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
Act to provide preferential treatment for certain apparel articles that 
are both cut (or knit to shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one 
or more beneficiary countries under that Act from fabrics or yarn not 
widely available in commercial quantities.
    H.R 3483--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear.
    H.R. 3484--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
    H.R. 3485--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
    H.R. 3486--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for men.
    H.R. 3487--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
or plastic footwear.
    H.R. 3488--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
    H.R. 3489--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
    H.R. 3490--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
or plastic footwear.
    H.R. 3491--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
leather footwear.
    H.R. 3527--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Ethalfluralin.
    H.R. 3528--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Diphenyl sulfide.
    H.R. 3529--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
4,4-Dimethoxy-2-butanone.
    H.R. 3530--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Methacrylamide.
    H.R. 3531--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
Fenbuconazole.
    H.R. 3609--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
thiophanate methyl and application adjuvants.
    H.R. 3610--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on zinc 
dimethyldithiocarbamate.
    H.R. 3611--A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
thiophanate methyl.
    H.R. 3635--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
sardines in oil, in airtight containers, neither skinned nor boned.
    H.R. 3636--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on prepared or 
preserved oysters, not smoked.
      
    Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on 
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
                                         Buckman Laboratories, Inc.
                                           Memphis, Tennessee 38108
                                                    August 30, 2005
House Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
United States Congress
Washington, DC

    It has been brought to our attention that 109th Congress H.R. 178 
would suspend until 2014 the import duty on dichloroethyl ether 
(``DCEE''). Buckman Laboratories, Inc. (``Buckman''), the principal 
U.S. manufacturer of DCEE, opposes eliminating the import duties 
currently imposed on that product.
    Buckman is a privately held international specialty chemicals 
manufacturer headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. Founded in 1945, 
today Buckman is a leading manufacturer of specialty chemicals for 
aqueous industrial systems. The company works with industries worldwide 
to provide advanced chemical treatment technologies and extensive 
technical service to solve complex industrial problems. Buckman 
produces over 500 different products and employs over 1,300 people in 
over 70 countries.
    Buckman produces DCEE principally for further manufacturing use as 
a component of water treatment products. DCEE is one of the two raw 
materials used to make a water treatment product called WSCP, a 
microbicide that controls algae growth in swimming pools or in cooling 
towers. Buckman also uses DCEE as a manufacturing component of other 
Buckman recreational and industrial water treatment products, 
domestically and internationally, and sells DCEE directly both as a 
stand-alone solvent product and as an intermediate for other reactive 
products to the oilfield drilling and equipment business. Other known 
international DCEE producers include Maruzen, a Japanese company. 
Maruzen manufactures DCEE in Japan utilizing a different, potentially 
more volatile acyclic ether manufacturing process, and exports it to 
the U.S. as a solvent, principally to the U.S. oilfield business 
through U.S. distributors. Importers have paid a duty on DCEE produced 
overseas for many years, as confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit on May 12, 2004 (E.T. Horn v. U.S., case #03-1363).
    Having lost an attempt to reduce the import duty to 1% from 5.6%, 
the proponents of H.R. 178 (introduced last January at the peak of the 
most recent increase in oil prices) simply desire greater profits by 
eliminating the import duty altogether. There is no evidence 
eliminating the import tariff on DCEE will rectify a product shortage 
(as none exists), lower wholesale DCEE prices to U.S. firms, or lower 
retail prices for refined petroleum products or water treatment 
products. To the contrary, H.R. 178 likely will increase profits and 
purchases of DCEE from non-U.S. manufacturers, increase incentives to 
locate or relocate DCEE plants overseas, decrease domestic profits for 
U.S. manufacturers, and reduce U.S. plant production levels with 
related effects on needs for domestic skilled labor.
    Buckman manufactures more than five million pounds annually of DCEE 
at its Cadet, Missouri, plant. DCEE has been one of our company's most 
important products for more than thirty years. Buckman has invested 
more than $27 million in our Cadet manufacturing facilities to date. 
Over thirty full-time employees work at Cadet's highly efficient, very 
competitive plant. Importantly, the Cadet facility has sufficient 
capacity to produce up to 12.5 million pounds of DCEE annually for 
domestic and international markets if demand materializes.
    Buckman prefers to be able to continue (and increase) domestic 
production of DCEE. We submit that the proponents can make no 
compelling case for eliminating the import tariff on DCEE at this time 
since virtually all domestic and a majority of international demand may 
be met by current U.S. production facilities, and since international 
manufacturers compete vigorously to stabilize wholesale prices.
    Buckman would be delighted to show any member of Congress or its 
staff our state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities and illustrate the 
issues raised by H.R. 178. Please contact Rocky Stevens (573-438-8101) 
or Chuck Brandenburg (901-272-8339) to arrange a tour.
    Please contact us immediately should further questions arise.
            Sincerely,
                                             Charles D. Brandenburg
                                                          President

                                                 William C. Pitcher
                              Vice President-Legal, General Counsel

                                 

         Statement of Erik O. Autor, National Retail Federation
    The National Retail Federation (NRF) submits this statement to the 
Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee to express the U.S. retail industry's 
strong opposition H.R. 445, which is under consideration for inclusion 
in a miscellaneous trade bill. NRF is the world's largest retail trade 
association with membership that comprises all retail formats and 
channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, 
catalog, Internet and independent stores as well as the industry's key 
trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an 
industry with more than 1.5 million U.S. retail establishments, more 
than 23 million employees--about one in five American workers--and 2004 
sales of $4.1 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also 
represents more than 100 state, national and international retail 
associations.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    Finally, NRF opposes H.R. 445, regardless of how it is packaged (as 
stand-alone legislation or as part of another piece of legislation). 
The measure is unworkable and unnecessary. It is unworkable because not 
all furniture can bear a sign that is at least 70 square centimeters in 
size that would not significantly detract from the appearance of the 
furniture (e.g., wall mirrors).
    It is unnecessary because U.S. law and regulation already require 
that a country of origin designation be placed on a product in such a 
way that the final consumer can readily ascertain its origin. Currently 
labels are typically placed at the back of a piece of furniture or 
inside it (for example, within a dresser drawer) to provide the 
information to the consumer without marring its appearance and 
diminishing its value.
    Retail companies' long experience with customer relations has 
consistently shown that the vast majority of consumers do not care 
about the country of origin of the products they buy, at least to the 
extent that they demand the information be placed in a more conspicuous 
location. Those who are concerned can readily ascertain the origin 
under current rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, legislation such 
as H.R. 445 is not designed to inform customers more fully, but rather 
to act as a non-tariff trade barrier. As such, it would be actionable 
through the dispute settlement procedures at the WTO as being in 
violation of U.S. obligations under the rules of international trade.
    NRF appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments H.R. 445. 
We strongly oppose and urge the exclusion of H.R. 445 from any 
miscellaneous trade legislation.

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

                                                    Dairy Australia
                                                Victoria, Australia
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw

    On July 25 you invited public comments on bills proposed for 
inclusion in a package of miscellaneous tariff measures. These 
comments, in opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 521 in that package, 
are submitted by Dairy Australia on behalf of dairy manufacturers and 
producers located in Australia.
    Dairy Australia is a private, not-for-profit industry services 
association. Dairy Australia's activities are funded by a compulsory 
check-off on all cows milk produced in Australia. The size of the 
check-off is decided by a vote of all economically active dairy farmers 
every three years.
    Australian dairy processors are globally competitive; producing 
high quality milk protein concentrates (MPC's) and casein (including 
caseinates). Exports of these value added dairy ingredients to the 
United States and a range of other countries are not subsidized i.e. 
Australian dairy processors rely solely on the market place for 
turnover and profitability. Australian origin casein exports have 
entered the U.S. market for over 50 years.
    This bill would establish tariff rate quotas (TRQ's) on MPC's and 
casein at levels less than 50 percent of respective volumes imported in 
2004. If implemented the out-of-quota or high tier TRQ ad-valorem rate, 
based on current import values, of 38 per cent for MPC and 44 percent 
for casein would effectively restrict trade to the in-quota volumes. 
This would allow no scope for innovative Australian dairy processors to 
grow, unhindered by non-commercial barriers, their business in the 
United States marketplace.
Background
    The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1949 effectively eliminated, 
until 2003 the ability of U.S. domiciled manufacturers to operate a 
profitable casein industry; through adjusting the dairy price support 
program to economically encourage the drying of milk proteins into non-
fat dry milk (NDM) powder. (MPC was not commercially available in 
1949).The March 2001 General Accounting Office report \1\ noted the 
U.S. industry is hamstrung in trying to switching to value added milk 
protein ingredients because of ``economic disincentives'' created by 
the dairy price support system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Reference is GAO-01-326, page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Government policies can play an important role in influencing the 
competitiveness of dairy products and in turn influencing product mix 
decisions by processors. In this regard the 1979 International Trade 
Commission (ITC) Section 332 report noted that with the institution of 
the price support program, as mandated by the 1949 Agricultural 
Adjustment Act, domestic production of casein became less profitable 
than the production of NDM.
Benefits of MPC and casein
    MPC and casein imports benefit U.S. food manufacturers and 
ultimately consumers through;

      Providing tailored ingredients for specific end use(s) by 
food manufacturers
      Providing a high quality, nutritionally beneficial 
ingredient at a competitive price; see attachment
      Improving manufacturing efficiency through increasing 
yields and reducing waste products because of the high concentration, 
compared to possible substitutes such as NDM, of milk proteins

    In many instances MPC and casein do not replace domestic U.S. 
origin NDM because of superior nutritional functional and flavor 
attributes. NDM has substantially higher levels of lactose (milk sugar) 
and substantially lower levels of the commercially valuable milk 
protein.
    The major beneficiaries of TRQ's may be suppliers of non dairy 
substitutes such as soy; potentially causing a permanent loss of market 
opportunity for dairy proteins if ingredient users alter their recipe 
formulas.
    Imported MPC and casein have only played a very marginal, if at 
all, role in displacing domestically produced milk proteins. The 
International Trade Commission (ITC) report released in May 2004 \2\ 
stated that imported milk proteins that ``may'' have substituted for 
domestically produced milk proteins accounts for approximately only 
1.27 percent of U.S. milk protein production from 1998-2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Conditions of competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. 
market, Investigation No 332.-453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian MPC exports to the United States
    An example of a mutually beneficial commercial relationship is that 
between Australia's largest dairy processor, Murray Goulburn 
Cooperative and a family owned food company based in Illinois, Erie 
Foods International (Erie).
    The relationship evolved as a result of the impact on the U.S. 
dairy processing sector of the 1949 Agricultural Structural Adjustment 
Act. Erie was forced to stop the domestic manufacturing of casein 
because it became more economic to dry milk protein into the commodity 
product, NDM rather than convert into value added milk protein 
products.
    Erie began at that time a joint venture casein manufacturing 
operation in Australia with a predecessor company to Murray Goulburn. 
The commercial venture has prospered and has grown to include the 
import of milk protein concentrates.
    Australia has a long if varied history of exporting milk protein 
concentrates to United States. The original exporter was United Milk 
Tasmania. Exports by season were;

      1982/83          28 tonnes
      1983/84         170 tonnes
      1984/85         200 tonnes
      1985/86         125 tonnes
      1986/87         440 tonnes
      1987/88         100 tonnes

    Most of this was MPC 75 percent, although the following MPC's were 
made and exported; 42, 50, 56, 70, 75 and 80. The entire product was 
made via ultra-filtration.
    Australia since 1995 has been the third largest supplier of imports 
of milk proteins to the United States; behind New Zealand and the 
European Union who collectively dominate trade.
Tariff Classification History: Are MPC Imports taking advantage of a 
        U.S. Trade loophole?
    The short answer is no!
    Congress considered the issue of Customs classification of MPC in 
1984. Casein had previously been afforded duty free entry with zero 
quantitative (quota) restrictions because the 1949 Agricultural 
Structural Adjustment Act, by including NDM rather than casein in the 
price support program, had effectively decimated domestic production of 
the latter.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ To quote from an Erie Foods letter to Representative Manzullo 
in March 2002; ``As a result of federal farm legislation in the late 
1940's, our company was forced to stop the domestic manufacturing of 
casein and began at that time a joint venture manufacturing operation 
in Australia which under Australian ownership continues to this day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1984 deliberations, the House Ways and Means Committee 
considered two very different approaches. The first was developed by 
the Senate Finance Committee, which had recommended a provision that 
would have defined milk protein concentrates narrowly. That committee 
observed that three recently developed dairy products were currently 
being classified in different ``basket'' categories, with;

      Whey protein concentrate classified as TSUS 183.05 (other 
edible preparations not specifically provided for), dutiable at 10 
percent ad valorem;
      Lactalbumin classified as TSUS 190.15 (albumin not 
specially provided for) free of duty; and
      Total milk proteinate classified as TSUS 493.17 (other 
casein and mixtures in chief value thereof) dutiable at 0.2 cents per 
pound

    The Senate provisions would have extended the scope of the existing 
quota provisions for dried milk, dried cream and dried whey (TSUS 
950.01 and 950.02) to cover the three new tariff categories as well, 
and would have made them subject to Section 22 quotas. However, the 
House Ways and Means Committee, by contrast, considered the Senate 
Approach but did not adopt it and it was not included in the 1984 law.
    The Summary of Provisions of HR 3398 (Trade and Tariff Act of 1984) 
as passed by the House and Senate (WMCP: 98-39) states: ``Under present 
law, whey protein concentrate, lactalbumin and milk protein concentrate 
are classified under various `basket' provisions in the TSUS. The 
conference agreement creates new tariff provisions for each of these 
recently developed dairy products. The applicable tariff rates remain 
unchanged and no quantitative restrictions would be imposed.''
    Thus, the conference committee's language indicates that while the 
Congress considered applying quotas to milk protein concentrates with 
40 percent or more protein by weight, it deliberately decided not to do 
so. Subsequently, the Uruguay Round Agreement converted the Section 22 
quotas to Tariff-Rate Quotas, and bound the United States to maintain 
its tariff treatment for milk protein concentrates as defined under the 
1984 law described above.
    In 1986, Congress modified the definition by changing ``albumin'' 
to ``lactalbumin''.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Page 8-4, section 123 of `The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Decisions by the U.S. Customs Bureau in 2002 and 2003 have 
supported the existing Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification i.e. 
Note 13 to chapter 4 states ``For purposes of subheading 0404.90.10, 
the term ``milk protein concentrates'' means any complete milk protein 
(casein plus lactalbumin) concentrate that is 40 percent or more 
protein by weight''. Customs rejected petitions organized by the 
National Milk Producers Federation in 2002 and 2003 (Reg. 516 appeal) 
to reclassify imported milk protein concentrates into tariff lines 
covered by quotas.
    In all these instances the policy intention is clear; Congress and 
the Administration have determined not to place any restrictions on 
trade.
U.S. and International Market Conditions for Milk Proteins
    The issue of TRQ's on value added milk protein imports (MPC's, 
casein and caseinates) needs to be viewed within the broader context of 
favorable international market developments. Consecutive reductions in 
the NDM support price in May 2001 and November 2002 and a sustained 
upswing in the international (or traded) price for milk proteins since 
mid 2003 has resulted in the following favorable impacts for the U.S. 
dairy industry;

      The United States has emerged as a major, non subsidized 
exporter of milk proteins, primarily but not solely in the form of NDM 
in 2004 and 2005.
      The last subsidized sale under the Dairy Export Incentive 
Scheme or DEIP was awarded in January 2004.
      The emergence of an unsubsidized, import replacing MPC 
industry in the United States. Since the second half of 2003 a joint 
venture between Fonterra and Dairy Farmers of America the U.S.'s 
largest dairy co-operative has resulted in profitable production at 
Portales, New Mexico. A second MPC plant is now being developed in 
Arizona; (a joint venture between the United Dairymen of Arizona and 
Fonterra). Combined both plants will meet a large portion of total U.S. 
demand.
The consequences of ill-judged policy actions will commercially hurt 
        the U.S. dairy sector
    As mentioned earlier the competitive threat is very real and 
growing from non-dairy substitutes. Non-dairy proteins, particularly 
soy can and are used in many food applications, especially imitation 
cheese products, non-dairy creamers and whipped toppings. Additionally 
extensive work is being undertaken by major companies such as Solae and 
Bunge to develop non-dairy protein substitutes targeted at replacing 
milk proteins in all applications.
    Restricting access for milk protein products will increase the 
commercial incentives for non-dairy substitutes. This is detrimental to 
the economic well being of the dairy industry in the United States and 
globally.
H.R. 521 Violates U.S. Trade Commitments
    Increasing tariffs on MPC and casein would violate U.S. WTO 
obligations and the U.S. Free Trade Agreement with Australia. In these 
trade pacts, the U.S. has agreed to maintain a certain level of duties. 
If the U.S. unilaterally decides to raise its bound tariffs, Australia 
and other countries supplying these dairy proteins to the U.S. market 
have the right to seek compensation under Article XXVIII (28) of the 
WTO.
    Article XXVIII allows the U.S. Government to change WTO tariff 
concessions by negotiation and agreement. Any effort by the U.S. to 
change their commitments would involve either:

      A re-negotiation with key supplying countries who seek to 
maintain the status quo. A solution would offer corresponding 
concessions on other products.
      A unilateral change of the tariff rate and/or description 
by the U.S. This would almost certainly lead to a WTO dispute 
settlement action seeking either compensation and/or retaliating 
against U.S. origin imports.

    The Irish Dairy Board in an August 2001 note to the International 
Trade Commission calculated compensation arrangements with WTO partners 
such as the EU and New Zealand would amount to $447 million in 
additional trade concessions.
    The calculation is based on paragraph 6(b) of the `Understanding on 
the interpretation of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994'. The paragraph 
states ``when an unlimited tariff concession is replaced by a tariff 
rate quota, the amount of compensation provided should exceed the 
amount of trade actually affected by the modification of the 
concession''. Point (b) of this paragraph provides for the calculation 
to be based on trade in the most recent year increased by 10 per cent.
    In respect of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement the relevant 
article states that neither party may increase existing duties other 
than as permitted under the Agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The relevant articles which describe how tariff elimination is 
to be carried out are;
    Article 2.3--Elimination of Customs Duties

      Paragraph 1--tariff elimination should be in accordance 
with Annex 2-B
      Paragraph 2--neither party may increase existing duties 
other than as permitted under the agreement

    Annex 2-B--Tariff Elimination

      Paragraph 1--base rates reflect rates in effect 1 January 
2004
      Paragraph 2--sets out staging categories for tariff 
elimination, with additional categories in each party's schedule

    Schedule of the United States--General Notes

      Paragraph 4(b)--staging category F--duties removed in 
equal annual installments over 18 years
      U.S. Tariff Schedule--35011010 (MPC's)--base rate 0.37c/
kg, staging category F

    Any alleged breach of the AUSFTA would go through the agreement's 
dispute settlement provisions--details set out in Chapter 21 of the 
Agreement. The Agreement was implemented on January 1, 2005.
    In addition to the economic effects of the retaliation, the U.S. 
would undermine its credibility to negotiate reduced agricultural trade 
barriers (to market access) in the Doha Development Round of trade 
negotiations. As a leader in advocating free trade, it would be highly 
inconsistent for the U.S. to erect any new trade barriers.
    In conclusion TRQ's on MPC and casein would severely restrict the 
ability of U.S. food and non-food manufacturers to choose sourcing of 
inputs; potentially add to the cost of food and reduce consumer welfare 
through restricting supply of an essential ingredient; open the door 
for functionally inferior non-dairy substitutes potentially leading to 
a long-term loss of market opportunity; discourage product innovation 
and product development that would increase consumer choice and help 
consumers develop more nutritious diets, reduce competition in the U.S. 
dairy market and result in the United States flouting their WTO and 
bilateral (with Australia) trade commitments at a period when a 
critical stage is being entered in the Doha Development Round.
                                                      Robert Pettit
           Manager Americas and Caribbean--Trade and Strategy Group

                                 

                                                     Blank Rome LLP
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                  September 2, 2005
Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On July 25 you invited public comment on a number of bills proposed 
for inclusion in a package of miscellaneous tariff measures. These 
comments are submitted on behalf of Fonterra (USA), Inc., Lemoyne, PA, 
in opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 521 in that package.
    In brief, this bill would establish tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on 
milk protein concentrate and casein (including caseinate) at severely 
restrictive levels--less than 50% of the milk protein concentrate and 
casein imported in 2004 would enter at current rates. In both cases the 
above TRQ ad valorem rate, based on current import values--38.2% for 
MPC and 44.4% for casein--are clearly prohibitive.
    In an attempt to add a patina of legitimacy to such onerous trade 
restrictions, the bill has been drafted in terms of the withdrawal of 
concessions under Article XXVIII of the GATT. However, dressing up 
these proposals as purported legitimate exercises of WTO rights cannot 
hide the significant costs of the legislation, both in real dollars to 
consumers and manufacturers, and in trade policy terms to the United 
States. To erect a barrier under the guise of Article XXVIII, when in 
fact the motivation for the measure lies in domestic politics, invites 
others to renege on their trade commitments at the behest of changing 
political winds.
    Indeed, given those political winds here in the U.S., in May of 
2003 Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley requested that the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) investigate the competitive 
conditions surrounding imported milk proteins In May of 2004 the ITC 
reported on its unprecedented year-long investigation into the 
economics of imported milk proteins (Conditions of Competition for Milk 
Protein Products in the U.S. Market, Investigation No. 332-453, USITC 
Publication 3692, May 2004). That report clarifies the facts and 
dispels the economic myths regarding the impact these proteins have on 
the U.S. domestic dairy industry. The ITC report is the most 
comprehensive and authoritative analysis ever undertaken concerning the 
economics of trade in milk proteins. Among its findings are the 
following:

      With respect to the assertion that milk protein imports 
play a major role in depressing U.S.. milk prices, the ITC concludes 
that

    ``The data do not show a clear and direct relationship between 
imports of milk protein products and the all-milk price in all years.'' 
(Page 9-4). The report notes that the ITC reviewed a broad range of 
studies by prominent dairy economists and, ``Even though these studies 
differed in terms of modeling approaches, commodity coverage, and base 
year, they generally found that imports of milk protein products have 
had little impact on farm-level prices in the U.S. market.'' (Page 9-
23).
    The report explains that domestic pricing of milk proteins, such as 
skim milk powder (SMP), and farm gate milk prices are largely a 
function of domestic government policies. ``The effect of imported milk 
proteins on farm-level prices depends on whether the market price for 
SMP is at, or above, the support price. Since SMP market prices were 
generally equal to the support price over the study period, most of the 
effect of imported milk protein was through U.S. Government purchases 
of SMP . . .'' (Page xxxiii) Interestingly the government is not now 
buying SMP and has disposed of virtually all of its accumulated stocks.

      With respect to the assertion that milk protein imports 
play a major role in displacing domestic milk proteins production, the 
report states on ``a protein basis, imports of MPC, casein and 
caseinate may have displaced 318 million pounds of U.S.-produced milk 
proteins between 1998-2002.'' (Page xxxii).

    To put this in context, the 318 million pounds of imported milk 
proteins that ``may'' have substituted for domestically produced milk 
proteins accounts for approximately only 1.27 percent of U.S. milk 
protein production from 1998-2002. It is not credible to argue that 
this degree of possible substitution is a major factor in the economics 
of the dairy market.

      With respect to the assertion that foreign government 
practices, notably E.U. subsidies, are the major factor driving imports 
and inhibiting a U.S. casein, caseinate and MPC industry, the report 
states, ``the Commission's questionnaire price data indicate that if 
price leadership exists in the U.S. MPC market, it is exercised by the 
Oceania countries.'' (Page 5-7). The report notes the fact that New 
Zealand and Australia are the lowest cost major producers of milk 
proteins in the world. The report states, ``Overall, the IFCN findings 
show milk production costs to be lowest in New Zealand and Australia, 
and to a lesser extent, the EU, where cows are generally fed by 
rotational grazing. In this aspect of dairy farming, Australia, New 
Zealand, and the EU operations have a distinct advantage over their 
counterparts in the United States, where dairy cows are fed forage and 
expensive concentrates.'' (Page 5-2). Moreover, the ITC found that the 
level of government support of the dairy industries in both Australia 
and New Zealand was far below that received in the U.S. and EU. ``New 
Zealand has the lowest percentage of dairy farm receipts from 
government support policies at less than 1 percent during the period.'' 
(Page 5-7).

    What the ITC report did find is that the ``most important factors 
affecting the competitiveness of milk protein industries are the cost 
of milk production and government programs.'' (Page 5-1). The ITC 
report explicitly points to disincentives to the U.S. production of 
these milk proteins. These disincentives include the U.S. dairy price 
support program, the milk marketing order system and the Food and Drug 
Administration's ``standards of identity'' which proscribe certain 
ingredients for certain foods, including a number of dairy products. 
The report states, ``At the same time, U.S. government support for SMP 
reduces the incentives to produce MPC and casein in the United 
States.'' (Page 5-1). In possibly its most direct statement on this 
topic, the report notes, ``U.S. production of these products is 
limited, and likely to remain limited, so long as the current Federal 
Milk Marketing Order and Dairy Price Support Program prices remain in 
effect.'' (Page 7-24).

      With respect to the assertion that imports of 
concentrated milk proteins are ``loophole'' products and that U.S. 
policymakers failed to reflect upon these proteins in developing and 
implementing U.S. trade policy, the ITC report notes that, ``The Trade 
and Tariff Act of 1984 created a new TSUS rate line for MPC. 
Specifically section 123 of that Act established TSUS item 118.45, 
covering MPC, with a duty rate of 0.2 cents per pound (the same rate 
then in effect for casein under TSUS 493.17) and not subject to fees or 
quantitative restrictions under section 22. Section 123 also created a 
TSUS legal note defining the scope of the new MPC rate line. The note 
stated, that ``for purposes of item 118.45, the term `milk protein 
concentrate' means any complete milk protein (casein plus albumin) 
concentrate that is 40 percent or more protein by weight. In 1986, 
Congress modified the definition by changing ``albumin'' to 
``lactalbumin.'' (Page 8-4). Clearly both the Congress and 
Administration have been paying attention for a long time.

    In addition it should be noted that:

      Both milk protein concentrate and casein imports 
substantially benefit U.S. industry and consumers by:

      -- making available specialized products not available from 
domestic sources
      -- contributing to the ability of industry to utilize new 
technology to make new products
      -- encouraging the introduction of new products targeted toward 
particular market segments such as geriatric foods and athletic drinks
      -- improving process efficiency by increasing yields and reducing 
waste product, the disposal of which is a continuing problem for the 
industry.
      -- The introduction of quotas would impose additional costs on 
the U.S. food industry and would reduce their competitiveness 
substantially. Rather than providing additional benefits for the food 
and dairy industries, the imposition of quotas would have significant 
downsides.
      -- In most end uses imported MPC and casein do not replace U.S. 
non-fat dry milk (NFDM) or other milk supplies, as both MPC and casein 
have nutritional, functional and flavor attributes not shared by NFDM. 
For example, for nutritional products, NFDM contains too much lactose 
and too little protein. Other proteins such as soy are often better 
substitutes for MPC and casein than NFDM.
      -- To illustrate the widespread application of casein and MPC, we 
have attached to this letter a list of some generic uses for them. As 
you will note, the uses are strikingly broad. A catalog of branded 
products containing these ingredients would certainly number in the 
hundreds, and likely in the thousands.
      -- MPC and casein duties were bound in the WTO by the U.S. in the 
Uruguay Round. Thus the U.S. may not increase the tariffs or impose 
quotas on these items without backtracking on its international 
obligations. We understand that the Irish Dairy Board has supplied the 
International Trade Commission with an estimate of the costs that would 
be involved in Article XXVIII compensation, which they estimate to be 
447 million dollars.
      -- Clearly Article XXVIII was not intended to be utilized in the 
erection of barriers to newly developed and technologically 
sophisticated products, whose domestic development has been inhibited 
by U.S. support policies.
      -- Finally, it should be noted that Fonterra, in a joint venture 
with Dairy Farmers of America, has begun MPC production in Portales, 
New Mexico without a U.S. subsidy; dispelling any idea that the U.S. 
producers are not able to compete against imports. The plant in 
Portales is profitably responding to the market demand for MPC and is 
running at full capacity. As a result of its success, a second plant is 
being developed in Arizona to meet market demand, and when both plants 
are operational (not to mention the prospect of additional capacity), 
nearly half of U.S. domestic demand will be met by U.S. domestic 
production--a dramatic change from just over 2 years ago.

    In summary, the adoption of this bill would limit the access of 
U.S. manufacturers of a wide range of food, nutritional and medical 
products to ingredients which have been tailored to their particular 
products. It would drive up their costs or force them to substitute 
functionally inferior ingredients such as soy based proteins. In either 
case, both they and the consumers they supply would be ill served. 
Moreover, the U.S. would be obligated to pay significant compensation 
to supplying countries, while creating a terrible precedent for others 
to renege on their international obligations as we enter the final 
stages of the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations.
                                                  Edward J. Farrell

                                 

                                                      General Mills
                                               Washington, DC 20005
                                                    August 23, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    General Mills appreciates this opportunity to offer comments to the 
Committee regarding including HR 521 in the Technical Corrections to 
U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. General Mills 
joins many others in strongly opposing the inclusion of HR 521. HR 521 
is extraordinarily controversial; its adoption would imperil U.S. trade 
negotiations and blunt the innovation of products using dairy 
ingredients.
    General Mills is a significant user of internationally sourced 
caseins and caseinates, utilized to produce some of the best-known 
consumer food products in the country. Tariffs on these proteins will 
substantially increase raw material costs for domestic food processors, 
negatively impact consumers, and ultimately be ineffective in solving 
our country's dairy oversupply problem.
    Caseins and caseinates exhibit unique product characteristics and 
provide functionality not available with domestic dairy alternatives. 
Casein is produced from skim milk by removing sugars, minor proteins, 
and minerals by using enzymes and acid to physically separate these 
components from the casein. Unfortunately, in the United States, 
government subsidies cause casein production to be uneconomical. Milk 
processors have an incentive to dry skim into non-fat dry milk (NFDM) 
and sell this product to the government at the support price levels, 
bypassing the casein production process. While NFDM is useful in many 
food processing applications, it lacks many of the characteristics 
needed for certain applications; including, attributes needed in the 
production of substitute cheese for use in low cost food applications 
and various baking applications.
    The deficit supply environment for caseins and caseinates in the 
U.S., combined with the unique functionality of these proteins in food 
processing, means that General Mills will continue to import these 
proteins regardless of import tariffs. This will inevitably pressure 
consumer food prices higher on products designed to be economical 
alternatives for lower income consumers. Simultaneously, stocks of NFDM 
will rise regardless, as the root cause of the dairy oversupply problem 
has not been addressed: government subsidies causing inefficient market 
allocation of domestic dairy products. NFDM production is so healthy 
that the United States is quickly becoming a major global supplier of 
this commodity.
    General Mills strongly opposes the proposed tariff-quota structure 
for proteins, caseins, and caseinates. The impact of this legislation 
would be negative for U.S. consumers, bad for international trade 
relations, and ineffective in encouraging greater use of domestic dairy 
products. Interestingly enough, recent developments in the industry 
have seen the birth of what may be a robust domestic milk protein 
sector--this of course is occurring in the absence of a tariff-rate 
quota, and is the product of market demand for supply. Furthermore, in 
its nonpartisan review of this issue released last year after more than 
one year of investigation, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
found no correlation between the use of these imported proteins and 
domestic NFDM prices.
    We appreciate the consideration of our views.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Jeffrey A. Shapiro
                                          Washington Representative

                                 

                                  Grocery Manufacturers Association
                                            Washington, D.C., 20037
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) appreciates this 
opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee on Trade on why 
H.R. 521 should not be included in the U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills under consideration in this 
session. The tariffs proposed under H.R. 521 would not protect the U.S. 
dairy industry as that bill implies and would impose additional costs 
to the U.S. consumer.
    GMA is the world's largest association of food, beverage and 
consumer product companies. With U.S. sales of more than 500 billion 
dollars, GMA member companies employ more than 2.5 million workers in 
all 50 states.
    The premise of H.R. 521 is that the U.S. dairy industry needs 
protection from the import of casein and milk protein concentrates. 
This argument is erroneous on two levels. First, dairy prices are not 
being affected by the import of MPC and casein. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture 2004 all-milk price paid to farmers was $16.04 per 
hundredweight (cwt), while the average has been $13.57 cwt for the last 
ten years. The forecasts for 2005 peg the all-milk prices as the third 
highest on record and these prices are in no way negatively affected by 
the import of MPCs (see ITC Investigation No. 332-453, May 2004 
comments below). Second, with the exception of one relatively new 
facility in Portales, New Mexico, no highly-filtered milk products are 
currently produced in the U.S. These filtered milk products have 
certain desirable qualities not present in dry skim milk products and 
which could not be easily replaced by less filtered dairy inputs.
    MPC and casein are both milk-derived ingredients that have been 
processed to retain and concentrate their protein content but extract 
certain other elements, such as ash or lactose (which some people are 
allergic to). These protein-rich ingredients provide valuable 
nutritional and technical properties to a wide variety of consumer 
foods and nutrition products produced by GMA member companies, 
including infant formula, sports drinks and ``power'' bars, diet 
supplement products, snack foods, hot dogs, cheese products, as well as 
many others.
    Reasonable access to imports of MPC and casein is particularly 
critical because there is, virtually, no domestic production of these 
processed dairy ingredients in the United States. Yet milk producers 
have amplified their call for tariff legislation, arguing that MPC 
``circumvents'' dairy tariffs and displace domestically produced non-
fat dry milk.
From the United States International trade Commission 332 Report on 
        Imported Dairy Proteins Conclusions Regarding Substitutability:
    The International Trade Commission carefully analyzed the issues 
relating to the use of imported dairy proteins in its Section 332 
Report, including the possible substitution of milk protein concentrate 
(MPC) for skim milk powder (SMP). While the ITC report concludes that 
imports of casein, caseinate and MPC may have substituted for 
domestically produced milk proteins, like SMP, in some applications 
because of their superior functionality and pricing, they find such 
substitution to be limited. Specifically, the report states that on ``a 
protein basis, imports of MPC, casein and caseinate may have displaced 
318 million pounds of U.S.-produced milk proteins between 1998-2002.'' 
USITC, Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. 
Market, Investigation No. 332-453, USITC Publication 3692 (2004) at 7-
13. To put this in context, the report notes that the U.S. annually 
produces over 170 billion pounds of milk, so that the 318 million 
pounds of imported milk proteins that ``may'' have substituted for 
domestically produced milk proteins accounts for just 1.27 percent of 
U.S. milk protein production from 1998-2002. It is simply not credible 
to argue that this degree of possible substitution is a significant 
factor in the economics of the dairy market. Further, the ITC report 
notes that:

      ``There appears to be little substitution between 
imported and U.S.-produced milk proteins in the specialty nutrition 
products.'' Id at 7-22; and
      ``To a lesser extent, manufacturers are substituting 
imported casein and caseinate for SMP, WPC, UF milk, and ingredient 
cheese in processed cheese products, other dairy foods, and bakery 
products.'' Id at 7-22; and, finally
      ``It appears that the majority of this substitution 
occurs in the production of processed cheese products where MPC 
substitutes for SMP, UF milk, and ingredient cheese.'' Id at 7-22.

    With respect to this final point, it appears to the U.S. Coalition 
for Nutritional Ingredients that the ITC's assumptions concerning such 
substitution overlook certain commercial realities. Namely,
1. High switching costs
    The Report states that the fact that process cheese products 
utilizing these alternative ingredients can be made in the same plants 
using the same equipment ``may indicate that the switching costs of 
producing processed cheese products with SMP versus MPC are minimal.'' 
(7-13, emphasis added.) However, the Report does not include any data 
relating to switching costs. In fact, Coalition members have spent 
millions of dollars over several years improving their products though 
the use of MPC. Coalition members' manufacturing processes cannot 
accommodate switching back and forth between MPC and SMP depending on 
the relative cost and availability of those ingredients. If process 
cheese manufactures were required to stop using MPC in their products, 
they would incur several million dollars in costs to switch to new 
formulas.
2. The technical superiority of MPC in process cheese.
    The Report notes that 99% of the MPC used in process cheese 
products is high protein MPC, with a protein percentage of 70% or 
greater (91% MPC 70-79 and 8% MPC 80-89). (Table 7-3) Almost all of the 
imported MPC used in the process cheese products produced by Coalition 
members is high-protein MPC, produced through the ultrafiltration 
process in New Zealand, and to a lesser extent in Australia. (Coalition 
members have also begun using newly available high-protein, 
ultrafiltered domestic MPC.) Low-protein MPC produced by blending is 
not suitable for processed cheese applications. The high-protein, UF 
MPC products used to manufacture process cheese have a protein 
concentration double that of SMP, greater consistency, and low lactose 
levels. For example, MPC-70 has a lactose content of 17% compared to 
over 50% for SMP.
    The ITC notes that high-protein MPC is technically superior to SMP 
in process cheese products, making the following specific observations, 
with which the Coalition agrees:

      ``Lactose is a problematic ingredient in a number of 
dairy products. Therefore, alternative protein sources that can deliver 
the desired protein without the lactose are appealing for the 
production of products where excess lactose is a concern.'' (7-10)
      ``. . . industry and academic experts stressed the 
importance of controlling the amount of lactose present during the 
manufacturing of both natural and processed cheese. Excess lactose 
reacts with water to form crystals, results in poor cooking and melting 
properties, and over time, may alter the color, flavor and consistency 
of the product.'' (7-10)
      ``. . . The use of MPC instead of SMP can improve the 
efficiency of the production process and thereby lower total production 
costs.'' (7-13)
      The ITC recognizes that even if some manufacturers may 
have reduced their purchases of SMP and other U.S. dairy proteins as 
they developed formulas including MPC, they are not likely to reverse 
that process, due to the technical superiority of MPC:
      ``However, while manufacturers may readily switch from 
U.S.-produced to imported milk proteins, they are somewhat less likely 
to switch from imported to U.S.-produced milk proteins. Barring 
significant changes in relative prices, the superior functional 
properties of imported milk proteins discourage switching to SMP, UF 
milk, WPC or ingredient cheese from MPC.''

    (7-22, emphasis added.) In other words, once a company has invested 
in using a superior ingredient, it is far less likely to make another 
significant investment to be able to use a less-desirable ingredient, 
even if there is a price advantage. U.S. process cheese manufacturers, 
and their customers, do not regard substituting a higher-priced, 
inferior ingredient as a rational substitution.
3. The MPC used in process cheese is not subsidized.
    The claims of the TRQ proponents that they need to be protected 
from ``unfairly subsidized'' imported MPC are particularly inapt in the 
case of process cheese. The high-protein MPC used in process cheese is 
manufactured through the ultrafiltration process in New Zealand and 
Australia, as noted above. As the Report clearly demonstrates in 
Chapter 5, there are virtually no subsidies on the production of MPC in 
New Zealand and very low subsidies in Australia. (See Table 5-5, which 
shows a Producer Support Estimate of less than 1% for New Zealand, 
compared to 44% to 60% for the U.S.)
Conclusion
    GMA is opposed to any attempt to impose higher tariffs or 
restrictive tariff-rate quotas on imports of MPC or casein. The U.S. 
dairy industry is under no threat from substitution with imported 
filtered milk products such as MPCs and casein. Dairy prices are at an 
all-time high making any further protections of that industry 
unnecessary. For these reasons, GMA would argue against such a bill in 
any forum. Given that H.R. 521 has been placed in the Miscellaneous 
Tariff Bill, we would also argue that this is a controversial bill, 
traditionally not the kind of bill considered under suspension of the 
rules.
    The Grocery Manufacturers Association appreciates this opportunity 
to present our views on this matter.
                                                        Mary Sophos
            Senior Vice President, Chief Government Affairs Officer

                                 

                                                     Kerry Americas
                                                   Beloit, WI 53511
                                                  September 1, 2005
Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of 
    Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing in strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 521, a 
bill that would impose highly damaging tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) on 
U.S. imports of casein, caseinate and milk protein concentrates (MPCs), 
in the pending Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB).
    We, along with many companies, utilize these milk proteins to 
produce a variety of food ingredients and other related products that 
are valuable to our customers both in the U.S. and abroad. Our company 
imports these milk proteins to help satisfy our customer needs in a 
number of our manufactured products. In fact, if these tariffs were to 
go into effect it would damage our ability to continue our growth as a 
company that is headquartered in Wisconsin and employs over 1,000 
people in that state alone, but also people in many more states where 
we take pride in producing to meet our customers needs. We also export 
our products, which is another reason why we are particularly concerned 
about H.R. 521 because it may result in retaliation against the very 
products we export not to mention other U.S. exporters.
    We know the milk proteins sector has been studied in depth by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as recently as 2004. A fair 
reading of the ITC report does not provide a foundation for the 
imposition of legislation like H.R. 521. As you well know, this 
independent unprecedented fact-finding investigation and the subsequent 
report should serve as a basis to reject protectionism as it relates to 
milk proteins. Furthermore, the trade and economic conditions in this 
sector since the period that was studied (1998-2002) by the ITC further 
drive home the point that protectionism is the wrong course.
    I know there are many arguments that have been tossed around 
regarding this issue on both sides. But, as a business executive that 
manages competitive manufacturing in the U.S. for a global market, H.R. 
521--if enacted--would be exactly what we do not need. It would cause 
us significant damage and signal us that additional investment in 
growth may not make sense. Why would anyone with the responsibility to 
oversee U.S. trade policy want to knowingly significantly damage 
competitive manufacturing and food ingredient production in America? 
Such action would only harm the market for dairy-based ingredients and, 
in the end, dairy farmers interested in supplying these growing 
markets. I strongly urge you to not include H.R. 521 in the MTB and to 
reject any efforts to impede U.S. trade in these milk proteins.
                                                      Stan McCarthy
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

   Statement of Jaime Castaneda, National Milk Producers Federation, 
                          Arlington, Virginia
Executive Summary
    The fundamental cornerstone of federal policy toward the U.S. dairy 
industry consists of the dairy price support program, operating in 
conjunction with WTO-consistent restrictions on imports of dairy 
products that permit the price support program to function in the 
presence of a highly-distorted and subsidized world market. Milk 
protein products, consisting of milk protein concentrate and casein, 
constitute a loophole in these import restrictions. As a result of this 
loophole, U.S. imports and use of these milk protein products have 
grown rapidly over the past decade, driven by foreign subsidies, both 
domestic and export subsidies, and by foreign monopoly exporting 
advantages.
    In recent years, rapid growth in U.S. milk protein imports 
economically displaced an equivalent quantity of domestically-produced 
milk proteins, creating a large, artificial surplus of nonfat dry milk 
that has been sold to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) under the 
price support program. This displacement eroded the effectiveness of 
the price support program, leading to significantly lower prices and 
incomes for U.S. dairy farmers and increased cost for U.S. taxpayers.
    The fact is that milk protein is milk protein. When additional 
amounts of milk protein are permitted to evade the underlying intent of 
our dairy import policies, the natural consequence is that 
domestically-produced milk proteins will be displaced. This is exactly 
what occurred during the recently past period of extremely low prices 
as evidenced by the close correlation between CCC purchases and 
additional imported milk proteins during that time period. The U.S. 
milk protein import loophole has essentially converted the U.S. 
domestic dairy price support program into an additional subsidy for the 
already subsidized foreign manufacturers of milk protein products and 
for domestic manufacturers of dairy products, at the expense of U.S. 
dairy farmers and taxpayers.
    Economic analysis shows that U.S. milk protein imports will 
continue to grow and contribute to the volatility of producers' 
incomes. This continued trend will further depress U.S. farm prices and 
incomes during times of price troughs, rendering the dairy price 
support program increasingly ineffective, and exacerbating the U.S. 
dairy industry's nonfat milk solids component surplus which often 
accrues during low price periods. We estimate that projected growth in 
U.S. imports of milk protein products will erode dairy farm prices and 
lead to a cumulative loss of U.S. dairy farm income of about $2.7 
billion dollars between 2005 and 2012. This economic situation is not 
sustainable and is undermining the stability of the U.S. dairy industry 
and threatening its long-term ability to be a reliable supplier to one 
of the world's largest markets for milk and dairy products.
    In order to rectify this situation, NMPF has worked with Members of 
Congress to propose legislation to address this tariff loophole (H.R. 
521 and S. 1417). These bills would create tariff-rate quotas for 
imported milk protein concentrate and casein products in order to allow 
a certain level of existing imports to continue, but to get a handle on 
explosive future growth of these imports. Despite the current favorable 
prices dairy producers are enjoying, milk prices are notoriously 
cyclical. This legislation is urgently needed to avert subjecting dairy 
producers to the devastating price circumstances they faced in 2002 and 
early 2003, which contributed to the extremely erratic prices of the 
past few years. This measure is in the interest of the U.S. dairy 
industry as a whole, since no part of the industry is well-served by 
the extremely volatile milk prices we have seen of late.
Introduction
    The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is the national farm 
commodity organization that represents dairy farmers and the dairy 
cooperative marketing associations they own and operate throughout the 
United States. The U.S. dairy industry is the second largest 
agricultural commodity subsector, as measured by farm cash receipts, 
generating an average of $24.3 billion in annual farm receipts from 
sales of milk during 2003-2004. The retail value of dairy products made 
from milk produced in the U.S. is estimated at approximately $90 
billion last year. There were 70,209 commercial dairy farms in the U.S. 
in 2003, each generating an estimated average of 16.7 jobs at the dairy 
farm and dairy processing plant level, for an estimated national total 
of 1,170,000 domestic jobs, not counting jobs at other levels in the 
agricultural and food industry, such as input suppliers, distribution, 
retailing and food service. By any measure, the U.S. dairy industry is 
a major domestic industry.
    The United States is also one of the world's largest and most 
attractive markets for the sale of milk and dairy products. Imports of 
many dairy products into the U.S. market are restricted under various 
tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), whose imposition is due to long-standing 
federal policy to operate the dairy price support program as the 
fundamental farm policy safety net program for U.S. milk producers. 
Without import restrictions, this policy could not be effectuated, 
given the significant distortions and subsidies that characterize the 
world market for dairy products.
    However, under the World Trade Organization Agreement on 
Agriculture, negotiated in the Uruguay Round, the United States 
significantly expanded access to its domestic dairy market and 
relinquished its previous ability under Section 22 of the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act to impose import restrictions in reaction to potential 
loopholes, changing market conditions and technological advances. 
During the ten-year period of 1995 through 2004, U.S. imports of total 
milk solids (milkfat plus nonfat milk solids) in all dairy products 
almost doubled, from about 475 million pounds to about 930 million 
pounds. During this same period, the share of total imported milk 
solids that were imported in the form of dairy products within tariff-
rate quotas declined, from 32 percent to 25 percent.
U.S. Imports of Milk Protein Products are Increasing on a Long-Term 
        Basis
    A major class of dairy imports that has been growing without 
restriction during the past decade has been milk protein products. 
These consist of milk protein concentrate (MPC), HTS 0404.90.10, which 
U.S. Customs defines as containing between 40 percent and 90 percent 
milk protein; milk protein concentrate, HTS 3501.10.10, which Customs 
defines as containing at least 90 percent milk protein; casein, HTS 
3501.10.50; and caseinates, HTS 3501.90.60. None of these four products 
is subject to TRQs when imported into the United States. Casein is 
imported free of duty, while the other three products are subject to a 
negligible duty of $.0037 per kilogram, which is equivalent to about 
one-tenth of one percent, on an ad valorem basis.
    Figure 1, below, shows annual imports of these four milk protein 
products during 1993 through 2004, and forecasts for 2005, based on 
imports during the first five months of the year. Data are from the 
U.S. Bureau of the Census, as reported by the USDA Foreign Agricultural 
Service. MPC imported under 0404.90.10 could contain milk protein 
contents of 40 to 70 percent, and is designated as MPC-low, while MPC 
imported under 3501.10.10 is assumed to contain an average milk protein 
content of 90 percent, and is designated as MPC-high.
    Imports of these milk protein products, particularly MPC-low, have 
clearly been growing over this period. Imports of this product 
experienced a one-year drop in 2001 due to severe supply constraints 
and restrictions on imports from the European Union in the wake of the 
foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (see Figure 2 below) and to possible 
reaction to highly visible efforts by NMPF to curb these imports. 
Following that, import levels again began to grow in 2002 before 
becoming subject to outside market conditions for a time.
    As seen in the graph, import levels in the first quarter of 2005 
have spiked compared to 2004 levels. This has occurred despite tight 
world supplies of milk protein, indicating a likely return to the 
general trend of increasing import quantities of these products. This 
development concurs with NMPF's repeated previous statements concerning 
the fact that, although MPC and casein imports had temporarily declined 
for a time, that state of the market was by no means permanent. Rather, 
as we are currently seeing, the overall trend of the past decade has 
been for these import levels to climb--often drastically. This is 
precisely why a long-term solution, such as H.R. 521, is needed to 
address this loophole. Better to act now to head off a problem than to 
see dairy prices plummet to record lows again in the future if Congress 
does not take measures to address this situation.
    Moreover, in a letter (available for subsequent submission) dated 
April 28, 2003, the U.S. customs identified a number of cases in which 
imported MPC is a blended product based on 90 percent skim milk powder. 
Also noteworthy is a letter that the National Milk Producers Federation 
sent to the ITC on October 4, 2001 (also available for subsequent 
submission) wherein we noted that a market basket survey of several 
large chain grocery stores revealed that all surveyed stores carried 
cheese products that contained MPC as a listed ingredient. Although 
this survey was limited in scope, concentrating on the Washington, DC 
area and a few selected stores in the Midwest, the findings 
conclusively showed how wide-spread the use of MPC is, even in the 
production of standardized cheese products.
    Casein and caseinates are not produced commercially in the United 
States because they can be imported at a lower protein-equivalent price 
than domestically-produced milk proteins. MPC-high and MPC-low are 
produced commercially in the United States, but operations can not be 
expanded because the same products, whether they are skim milk powder 
or some other form of milk protein concentrate, can be imported at a 
lower price. This, in turn, is due to the fact that the production and 
marketing of these products by other countries is largely subsidized 
and because we do not have a specific subsidy program for skim milk 
that allows U.S. manufacturers to dump their product into world markets 
such as those in Europe, Canada and New Zealand.
    Figure 2 shows the country of origin for imports of the four milk 
protein products during 1998-2004. New Zealand and the European Union 
account for the large majority of all products in each of these years. 
New Zealand markets these products through monopoly state trading, 
which allows it to cross-subsidize among markets and products. The 
European Union operates a subsidy program for the production of casein 
and caseinates, which allows it to export large quantities of these 
products below its costs of production, just as its direct export 
subsidies allow it to export large quantities of butter, milk powder 
and cheese below cost. The EU's program for aid to the production of 
casein and caseinates also allows it to export blends of these products 
with skim milk powder and whey as milk protein concentrate, despite the 
fact that the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States impose 
higher tariffs for skim milk powder.
    As discussed above, the large drop in MPC-low imports from the EU 
in 2001, following the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, can be clearly 
noted in Figure 2.
    Canada and various eastern European countries, which export smaller 
quantities of milk protein products to the United States, also use 
export subsidies to do so. In Canada's case, the subsidies in question 
have operated outside the sanction of the World Trade Organization. 
These distortions created by monopoly advantages and by domestic and 
export subsidies are responsible for making MPC and casein available at 
a lower cost to U.S. purchasers. The very reason these products are so 
financially attractive to processors and manufacturers in the U.S. is 
because other countries have orchestrated their dairy programs to make 
them artificially affordable. Therefore, advocating a ``free-market'' 
approach where importers can purchase whatever product is the lowest 
cost ingredient essentially advocates undercutting the U.S. commitment 
to minimal domestic market intervention and supports a global system of 
artificially-low offered prices.
    The primary reason why MPC and casein are being imported into the 
United States in large and increasing quantities is because, for 
reasons addressed above, they provide food processors with a lower-cost 
source of the dairy components that they would otherwise procure from 
domestic milk producers. The real concern is that many companies may 
initially convert because of the price differential. However, once they 
have invested the necessary resources in restructuring their operations 
to accommodate the use of imported milk protein products, there is a 
strong incentive to continue using those products due to the additional 
costs associated with varying the protein source. As more manufacturers 
see their competition converting to using cheaper and subsidized 
imported milk protein products, they will face extreme pressures to 
convert to these artificially discounted products in order to remain 
competitive. This will lead to the increasing development of processes 
that rely on MPC and casein, not because domestic sources of milk 
protein would not suffice; but rather because different systems are 
required to process different protein delivery forms.
    Despite this tendency, the root cause of this increasing trend away 
from milk proteins produced in the U.S. is not the discovery of new 
products that can only be made with imported milk protein products. 
Rather, the underlying cause is the comparative affordability of these 
subsidized imported products as compared to domestic alternatives. It 
is the choice to avoid the appropriately priced domestic protein 
products that is spurring the majority of the decisions to convert to 
MPC/casein, which in turn may then lead to the development of 
additional uses tailored to these products.
    The National Milk Producers Federation does not dispute that a 
limited number of products do now require the specific properties of 
MPC-high or casein. The heavy subsidization of those products and the 
development of new uses of those products to take advantage of a loop-
hole in the U.S. tariff system, however, are what are at issue. 
Moreover, the need for the majority of these products is at best 
unclear and more likely heavily dependent on artificially low prices. 
The importation of these products is clearly a ``windfall'' to 
processors that is directly undermining U.S. laws that protect U.S. 
dairy producers' income.
    Despite what importers and advocates of these products may say, the 
reality of the situation is that the world markets for milk proteins, 
as well as other milk products, are extremely distorted. Those who 
encourage one-way free trade and argue that U.S. producers are 
uncompetitive because of our domestic support failed to note that other 
countries are competitive solely because of trade distorting programs.
    Second, substitutability is not an issue. The large demand for milk 
proteins that are currently being imported is perfectly sustainable 
using U.S. skim milk. The bulk of the demand for these products arises 
from their artificial affordability, not from their special properties. 
Moreover, in the select instances where manufacturers may feel that 
their product does indeed demand certain properties supplied by MPC-
high or casein, the U.S. market is capable of meeting this need, 
provided the manufacturers pay the fair market price for the products. 
All imported proteins are either already being produced in the United 
States or can be produced in a fairly rapid matter.
U.S. Milk Protein Imports are Displacing Domestically-Produced Milk
        Proteins
    Imported milk protein products are used largely in the production 
of dairy foods, primarily cheese, as well as other food products. Their 
importation therefore displaces domestically-produced milk protein, 
which is manufactured into nonfat dry milk, or skim milk powder, the 
traditional product into which excess skim milk solids are manufactured 
in the U.S. dairy industry, and sold in that form to the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC) under the dairy price support program's 
standing offer to purchase.
    The data in Figure 3, above, show that milk protein imports into 
the United States are growing in the long run, as shown by the 
explosive 59% growth in the amount of proteins coming into the United 
States in the form of MPC, casein and caseinates between 1993 and 2004. 
Growth in the level of total MPC, casein and caseinates imports between 
1993 and 2004 is even higher at 67%. The data above also show that milk 
protein imports are growing not just in absolute terms but also as a 
portion of the protein supply in the large and growing U.S. dairy 
industry. Imported milk proteins have grown from approximately 50 
percent to about 60 percent of the milk proteins in domestically-
produced nonfat dry milk. This growth in milk protein imports, in both 
an absolute and a relative sense, is having increasingly negative 
impacts on the domestic industry.
    Figure 4, on the following page, compares the growth in the volume 
of milk protein imports since 1993 with the level of milk proteins 
displaced in the domestic market, as measured by purchases of nonfat 
dry milk by the Commodity Credit Corporation under the dairy price 
support program. To facilitate the comparison, milk protein import 
growth is expressed in terms of the equivalent volumes of nonfat dry 
milk that would supply the same volumes and types of milk protein as 
are contained in imported milk protein products.
    CCC purchases were small at the beginning of this period but have 
since grown at a rate that closely matches the rate of milk protein 
import growth. The only year which deviates somewhat from this pattern 
is 2002, when supplies temporarily outstripped consumption, which was 
dampened by the recession and the events of 9/11. As shown, the basic 
correlation has reestablished itself subsequently. Additionally, more 
recently in 2005, the relationship again experiences a bit of an 
anomaly as import levels continue to climb while CCC purchases are 
minimal due to the current extremely tight world supply of dairy 
proteins which has allowed for the export of sizable amounts of nonfat 
dry milk from the U.S.
    A word of clarification should be interjected at this point, 
regarding the issue of displacement of domestically-produced milk 
proteins by imports. In discussions of this issue, it is sometimes 
claimed that imported milk protein products, for example casein, do not 
substitute for domestic milk protein products such as nonfat dry milk 
because the two products do not have the same physical properties in 
food processing applications. As a result, nonfat dry milk cannot be 
directly substituted for casein in a number of applications. However, 
this type of consideration deals with the issue of physical 
substitutability, not economic substitution.
    In this sense, milk proteins imported in all product forms displace 
domestically-produced milk proteins, which are commonly manufactured 
into nonfat dry milk when displaced. U.S. milk proteins could be, and 
would be manufactured into any and all forms for which domestic uses 
exist, including all products currently imported, if imported milk 
proteins did not benefit from subsidies which reduce their prices or if 
U.S. mil proteins were able to receive corresponding subsidies to match 
imported protein prices.
U.S. Milk Protein Imports Have Seriously Eroded U.S. Dairy Farm Prices 
        and Income
    The impact of import replacement in the U.S. milk proteins market 
is negative and substantial for U.S. dairy farmers. It creates excess 
supply of U.S. nonfat milk solids and depresses domestic prices of 
dairy products that are affected by the supply and demand for milk 
proteins and nonfat milk solids, primarily nonfat dry milk. This, in 
turn, depresses prices for milk received by farmers in the United 
States.
    By way of explanation: In the United States, most dairy farmers are 
paid for the milk they produce through the market regulatory mechanism 
of marketing orders, operated either by the federal government or by 
individual states. Approximately 70 percent of all milk produced is 
normally marketed under ten federal milk marketing orders covering 
specific geographical areas. Under a federal milk marketing order, 
farmers are paid a weighted-average, or ``blend'' price based upon the 
proportionate use of the milk that supplies the order area in different 
dairy products. Separate use classes, and corresponding separate 
prices, are utilized to reflect milk used to produce fluid milk 
products (Class I); soft manufactured products such as yogurt, cottage 
cheese, ice cream and creams (Class II); hard cheese and whey (Class 
III); and butter and nonfat dry milk powder (Class IV).
    Minimum prices that milk buyers must pay under federal milk 
marketing orders for milk used to produce these different product 
classes are determined monthly using formulas that incorporate reported 
prices for Class III and Class IV products (cheese, whey, butter and 
nonfat dry milk), as well as milk yields and processing costs 
reflective of producing those products. In any particular month, prices 
for Class II, Class III and Class IV milk are the same in all federal 
milk marketing orders, while prices for Class I milk vary 
geographically based on transportation costs, milk supply and milk 
consumption considerations. The Class I price for a month is 
essentially the higher of the Class III and Class IV prices during a 
period preceding the month plus a fixed, geographically-specific 
``Class I differential.'' The Class II price for the month is 
essentially the Class IV price during a period preceding the month plus 
$.70 per hundred pounds of milk.
    Several states, notably California, maintain state marketing orders 
that function in a manner similar to federal orders. Approximately 20 
percent of the nation's milk is priced under state orders. Farmers 
marketing the small remaining portion of milk that is not regulated and 
priced under federal or state milk marketing orders nevertheless 
receive prices that are closely correlated with marketing order prices 
because market forces act to ensure that prices cannot fall far out of 
geographic alignment. Therefore, all U.S. dairy farmers are paid prices 
that are directly determined by prices for cheese, whey, butter and 
nonfat dry milk in the U.S. market. The prices for these four products 
are, in turn, determined by the forces of supply and demand for those 
products and are directly affected by imported dairy products.
    Although the dairy price support program maintains a certain 
minimum price level for these products in the marketplace, that level 
of support is freely variable through regulatory action in the case of 
nonfat dry milk, for which markets are most directly affected by 
imported milk protein products. The Secretary of Agriculture has the 
authority to adjust the CCC purchase prices for butter and nonfat dry 
milk, as long as, together, the two prices are equivalent, on a milk 
basis, to the statutorily-established price support level. During 
periods when one of these products is in surplus but the other is not, 
prices of the product in surplus fall to the CCC purchase price level 
and the CCC purchases quantities of the product, while prices of the 
other product are maintained by market forces above the support level. 
When purchases of the surplus commodity are excessive during such 
periods of ``component surplus,'' the Secretary of Agriculture has 
sometimes acted to reduce the CCC purchase price of that commodity and 
increased the CCC purchase price of the other product that is not in 
surplus. Due to the structure of the U.S. milk pricing system, just 
described, these ``butter-powder tilts'', as they are termed, result in 
reduced prices and incomes for dairy farmers.
    As part of its 2004 report entitled the Conditions of Competition 
for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. Market, the International Trade 
Commission (ITC) studied just such an occurrence. According to the ITC, 
MPC and casein imports ``contributed about 35 percent to the growth in 
CCC stocks during 1996-2002.'' (pages 9-3, 9-15). In response to a 
buildup in CCC purchases and inventories of nonfat dry milk as a result 
of this import replacement in the domestic milk proteins market, the 
former Secretary of Agriculture made two ``tilts'' over the course of a 
year and half. On May 31, 2001, the Secretary announced a reduction in 
the CCC purchase price for nonfat dry milk, from $1.0032 per pound to 
$0.90 per pound, and on November 15, 2002, the Secretary announced a 
further reduction to $0.80 per pound. The report's findings supported 
the linkage between CCC stock levels and the tilt measures, stating 
that ``according to USDA officials, tilt adjustments were made in 
response to growth in CCC stocks and the mounting purchase and storage 
costs to the Federal budget.'' (page 9-12).
    Unfortunately, due to lack of documentation at USDA concerning the 
precise criteria used to determine whether and by how much the tilts 
should be made, the ITC was unable to state with certainty that the 
heightened CCC stock levels due to imports had led to the decision to 
implement the two tilts (page 9-17). Given the ITC's findings on each 
matter individually, however, the relationship between these two events 
is quite clear.
    Figure 5, below, shows the results of a simulation analysis of the 
intermediate-term impact of these two butter-powder tilts on U.S. dairy 
producer prices and incomes. This analysis simulates dairy product 
prices, and the corresponding milk prices and farm incomes, that would 
have occurred had the tilts not taken place, and compares those with 
actual prices and incomes. Given the relatively short time horizon, it 
does not model the impacts of changes in supply and demand in response 
to the estimated price changes.
    As shown, we estimate that these two tilts reduced U.S. dairy farm 
incomes by about two and one-quarter of a billion dollars and largely 
set the stage for the prolonged period of low milk prices throughout 
2002 and the first half of 2003, when milk prices set new 25-lows for 
months at a stretch.
    A particularly devastating aspect of such component surplus-induced 
price erosion is that supply cannot adjust in a straightforward 
fashion, as it can when an entire commodity is in surplus. Milk is 
produced with the two basic components, milkfat and nonfat milk solids, 
in relative proportions that do not vary much at all over time and 
under varying price scenarios. When the relative supply-demand 
situation for the two dairy components diverge over time, as they are 
currently doing in response to the growth in milk protein imports, 
there ensues a situation of growing price instability and market 
disruption that is not sustainable.
U.S. Milk Protein Imports Will Continue to Erode U.S. Dairy Farm Prices 
        and Income
    Based on simple time series analysis, which aggregates all causes 
of change in U.S. milk protein imports, including price trends, we 
estimate that annual imports of MPC and casein will rise to the 
equivalent of 1.3 billion pounds of nonfat dry milk by the year 2012, 
from a level of approximately 950 million pounds in 2004. This 
projected growth in milk protein imports over the next eight years is 
equivalent to more than 300 million pounds of domestically-produced 
nonfat dry milk, or 3.8 billion pounds of raw milk. This is over and 
above the ``base levels'' of displacement of production by milk protein 
imports in 2004, which is equivalent to 11.3 billion pounds of domestic 
milk production, representing the production of almost 600,000 cows of 
2004 average productivity and more than 4,400 dairy farms of average 
size in 2004.
    This continued growth in U.S. milk protein imports will likely 
impose significant pressure on the price support program, following the 
current period of unusually high international prices for nonfat dry 
milk, and ultimately lead to resumption of significant quantities of 
CCC purchases that would have the potential of rendering the price 
support program unmanageable. We have serious concerns that the dairy 
industry's cornerstone safety net policy, the dairy price support 
program, cannot remain stable and viable if burdened with removals of 
an additional 300 million pounds of nonfat dry milk per year. At 
current CCC prices, such additional purchases would cost the U.S. 
government about $250 million per year.
    Using a simple economic model that takes into account the 
adjustments in domestic milk supply in response to price changes, we 
estimate that this projected growth in U.S. imports of milk protein 
products will further erode dairy farm prices and lead to a cumulative 
loss of U.S. dairy farm income of about $2.7 billion dollars between 
2005 and 2012.
In Closing
    The National Milk Producers Federation appreciates the opportunity 
to present its views to the House Ways and Means Committee with respect 
to the need for H.R. 521, the Milk Import Tariff Equity Act, in order 
to address the loophole in our tariff structure that imported milk 
protein products are currently exploiting. H.R. 521 would create 
tariff-rate quotas for these products, allowing a controlled amount to 
enter each year, but imposing a ceiling of sorts on the total quantity 
permitted to impact our domestic market--identical to the way the vast 
majority of traditional dairy products are dealt with in order not to 
undermine the U.S. dairy price support program and to ensure the health 
of the U.S. dairy industry.

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                                New Zealand Embassy
                                               Washington, DC 20008
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw

    The New Zealand Government notes that HR521, a bill to impose 
tariff rate quotas on certain casein, caseinates and milk protein 
concentrates, has been proposed for inclusion in this year's 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. New Zealand is a significant supplier of 
milk protein concentrates, caseinates and casein to the United States 
and the creation of a tariff quota for these products would be 
detrimental to New Zealand's trading interests.
    The current access regime reflects an overall balanced outcome of 
rights and obligations, as a result of negotiation and compromise by 
all WTO members during the Uruguay Round. It would be regrettable to 
upset this balance at a time when the United States and New Zealand 
(and other WTO members) are engaged in negotiating comprehensive and 
ambitious reforms to the global agricultural trading system in the Doha 
Round, to the benefit of both our agriculture industries.
    Additionally, the May 2004 report of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission ``Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the 
U.S. Market'' showed that imports of milk protein concentrates did not 
impact on domestic farm-level prices for milk proteins and that there 
was only minimal impact on domestic milk protein production.
    We therefore respectfully ask that HR521 not be included in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. My staff and I are available to provide 
further information or respond to any questions members of your 
committee may have on this issue.
                                                          John Wood
                                          Ambassador of New Zealand

                                 

                                               Novartis Corporation
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Novartis Nutrition Corporation (NNC), I am writing to 
urge your Subcommittee on Trade to oppose efforts to include H.R. 521, 
the ``Milk Import Tariff Equity Act,'' in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill. We strongly object to H.R. 521 because it would impose a new and 
completely unjustified tariff-rate quota regime on imports of certain 
milk proteins, caseins and caseinate products, an action that would 
have very serious and harmful consequences for our company, and the 
patients we serve with our medical nutrition products. We urge the 
immediate deletion of this measure from the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, 
and we will oppose its provisions if introduced in any other form.
    The arguments used to justify this legislation in the past have 
been shown to be invalid. A May 2004 U.S. International Trade 
Commission study (Investigation 332-453, Conditions of Competition for 
Milk Protein Products in the U.S. Market), in response to a request by 
the Senate Finance Committee, concluded after a year-long review, that 
imports of milk protein concentrates, caseins and caseinates have had 
no direct impact on the farm milk prices paid to U.S. producers. 
Moreover, this bill is being proposed at a time when U.S. dairy 
producers are receiving some of the highest prices ever for their milk.
    We believe legislation imposing tariff-rate quotas would jeopardize 
the supply of, and substantially increase costs for, imported milk 
protein concentrates (MPCs), casein, and caseinates. For these reasons, 
Novartis has consistently articulated opposition to the substance of 
such legislation, and we have vigorously questioned its justification. 
Congress did not pass similar legislative efforts in the past, and H.R. 
521's inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, or any other 
legislation, is inappropriate.
    Novartis Nutrition Corporation is a division of Novartis 
Pharmaceutical Corporation, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. St. 
Louis Park, MN is the North American Headquarters of the division and 
home to manufacturing, warehouse operations, and corporate offices. In 
addition, our Minnesota headquarters serves as our Global Research and 
Development operations for Nutrition, In all, we employ over 750 people 
at this location. NNC manufactures a variety of medical enteral 
nutrition products that can be tube-fed or taken as oral supplements, 
most designed as part of overall treatment plans in a variety of 
disease states, including: diabetes, renal, pulmonary, and cancer 
treatments. We manufacture products for adult and pediatric use.
    An essential component of our nutritional products is protein. The 
only dairy protein with the necessary functional characteristics for 
use in enteral formulas is caseinate. Other sources of dairy protein, 
such as fluid milk or nonfat dry milk, are not appropriate for this 
use. The following points explain the key reasons for the use of 
caseinate in our nutritional products:

    1.  Thermal process stability: Caseinates are stable under the 
thermal process conditions necessary to render a liquid product 
commercially stable. Egg white protein would coagulate under these 
conditions, resulting in a product that would not be deliverable via a 
feeding tube.
    2.  Low viscosity: Caseinates provide a low viscosity liquid 
product, which is essential when the product is delivered using a small 
diameter feeding tube. It may be possible to create a liquid using 
other high quality proteins, such as those derived from soy or meat; 
however, the resulting liquid would be of too high a viscosity to 
permit flow through feeding tubes.
    3.  Emulsion stability: Caseinates are excellent stabilizers of 
liquid complete nutrition products. The use of meat proteins and 
certain soy proteins in liquid tube feedings will, over time, result in 
the oil separating from the bulk phase, resulting in a product that 
appears spoiled, or defective.
    4.  Allergenicity and tolerance: Caseinates are lactose free. Fluid 
milk or nonfat dry milk, a domestic source of dairy protein, contains 
lactose, a milk sugar to which certain individuals are intolerant. In 
addition, other individuals are allergic to products containing egg. In 
other cases, individuals cannot consume meat products for religious 
reasons.

    To our knowledge, suitable caseinates are either not manufactured 
in the United States, or manufactured in such low quantities that 
domestic production would not offset the negative impact of a tariff-
rate quota. We have no alternative source of supply in the economic 
quantities necessary to make our nutritional products.
    H.R. 521 could result in cost increases to NNC of at least $5.1 
million. The narrowing and increased cost of supply ingredients would 
result in increased production costs that would have to be absorbed 
internally and/or passed on to consumers and patients--increasing the 
costs of essential therapies for individuals requiring medical 
nutrition interventions.
    A tariff-rate quota applied to caseinates and MPCs, as provided in 
H.R. 521, would cause significant and unnecessary economic hardship to 
the medical nutrition industry and the patients who benefit from its 
life-saving therapies. We will either have to absorb the increased 
costs, pass them on to customers and patients, and/or engage in a 
lengthy process to reformulate a significant number of products in a 
search for alternative protein sources. This will cost millions of 
dollars and will drain resources away from developing new, innovative 
nutrition therapies. Even if we can succeed in finding suitable 
alternative ingredients, it is very unlikely that these alternative 
sources of protein will be domestically produced dairy products such as 
nonfat dry milk.
    We appreciate your consideration of this important and very urgent 
matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, 
please contact me in our D.C. office.
                                                       Tracy Haller
                 Executive Director, International & Public Affairs

                                 

                                                         RetireSafe
                                                   Oakton, VA 22124
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of RetireSafe's 367,000 senior citizen supporters across 
America, including more than 25,000 in Florida, we strongly urge your 
Subcommittee on Trade to reject efforts to include H.R. 521 
(controversial legislation to impose new tariff-rate quotas on imported 
milk protein concentrate (MPC), casein, and caseinates) in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. H.R. 521 would especially harm older 
Americans, and RetireSafe will continue to oppose any measure that 
contains its harmful provisions.
    Seniors are living longer, healthier lives for many reasons, 
including today's availability and affordability of critical 
nutritional products that utilize imported MPC, casein, and caseinate. 
Supporters of H.R. 521 would pile tariffs on these essential imported 
ingredients, in a punitive effort to price their use out of the market, 
even though there is no good substitute for them. Non-fat dry milk has 
never been a feasible replacement for MPC, casein, or caseinates in 
these popular and nutritional foods and drinks. The high lactose 
content, as well as the instability of the protein content, eliminates 
the possibility that non-fat dry milk could be used instead of the 
imported milk proteins. Thus, not only would the tariffs contained in 
H.R. 521 impose a ``food tax'' on consumers, punishing seniors on fixed 
incomes the most of all, it would also spell the demise of key 
nutritional products that the elderly depend on daily.
    From the hundreds of common grocery items that make use of these 
irreplaceable milk protein imports to provide sought-after nutrient 
levels, consistency, and good taste, to senior-specific products like 
Ensure, and more specialized, life-saving medical drinks used in 
hospitals and nursing homes, the very ingredients H.R. 521 would make 
unavailable or unaffordable are absolutely critical to America's senior 
citizens.
    For these reasons, RetireSafe has consistently opposed H.R. 521 and 
other similar measures. Any vote regarding any legislation containing 
the controversial provisions of H.R. 521 will be considered a ``Key 
Vote'' by RetireSafe and the senior-supporters we represent, and any 
such vote will be heavily weighted in any RetireSafe ranking of 
Congress. Again, we strongly urge you, and the Subcommittee on Trade 
which you Chair, to reject the ill-advised effort to include H.R. 521 
in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
                                                  Charles G. Hardin
                                                          President

                                 

                         U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients
                                               Washington DC, 20005
                                                  September 2, 2005
Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The U.S. Coalition for Nutritional Ingredients (the ``Coalition'') 
is a group of more than 40 taxpayer, consumer and senior citizen 
organizations, as well as trade associations and food companies that 
strongly oppose H.R. 521, the Milk Import Tariff Equity Act. This 
controversial legislation attempts to impose tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) 
on imported milk protein concentrate (MPC), casein and caseinates, 
which would lead to increased costs on a wide range of specialized 
consumer products.
    The Coalition urges you to reject the inclusion of H.R. 521 in this 
year's miscellaneous tariff bill. This trade vehicle is traditionally 
reserved for non-controversial bills. In the case of H.R. 521, the 
economic and policy issues are highly divisive and strongly contended. 
For example, enactment of H.R. 521 would create a regressive food tax, 
and would be a blatant violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) 
rules and U.S. international trade obligations. For these and other 
substantive reasons, the Coalition would vigorously oppose any 
legislative vehicle incorporating H.R. 521, including the miscellaneous 
trade bill, as well as any expedited process for consideration of such 
a vehicle. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee on Trade to not include 
H.R. 521 in the miscellaneous tariff bill.
    MPC, casein and caseinates are technologically sophisticated 
ingredients that are tailored to meet manufacturers' requirements. 
Unlike nonfat dry milk (NFDM) which contains lactose and low and 
varying levels of protein, MPC, casein and caseinate can be used in a 
wide range of specialized products to meet the market demand for 
products that contain little or no lactose, and have high and 
consistent levels of protein. MPC, casein and caseinates are not 
interchangeable with NFDM; they are different products, with distinct 
characteristics and unique applications.
    Currently, these proteins enter the U.S. with minimal duties and 
are important ingredients in a variety of popular consumer goods and 
specialty foods that Americans enjoy each and every day including: 
processed cheese products, coffee creamers, convenience foods, frozen 
dinners, geriatric drinks, hypoallergenic infant formulas, sports bars, 
weight-loss beverages and nutritional drinks. These proteins are also 
used in many medical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, animal feed and 
industrial products. Adding new tariff barriers would increase costs to 
U.S. users of these dairy ingredients. With the domestic market for 
these proteins significantly larger than domestic production, 
manufacturers would have no choice but to import the ingredients, pay 
the higher price, and pass the increased cost onto consumers.
H.R. 521 is Highly Controversial
    This issue of raising tariffs on milk protein ingredients has been 
before Congress for many years and has caused much heated debate on 
Capitol Hill. To obtain an independent analysis of the situation, the 
Senate Finance Chairman requested an International Trade Commission 
(ITC) investigation into the economics of imported milk proteins over 
the period of 1998 to 2002. In May 2004, the ITC released a report on 
its year-long research. This document is the most exhaustive, 
authoritative and objective study of the matter. It supports most of 
the Coalition's arguments and sets forth no basis for new tariffs on 
imported dairy proteins. Despite the ITC's findings, supporters of the 
TRQ continue to urge legislators to enact H.R. 521. Simply put, H.R. 
521 is highly controversial and including this bill in the 
miscellaneous tariff bill could jeopardize the expedited process that 
has traditionally benefited this legislation.
Foreign Government Practices Are Not the Culprit
    H.R. 521 supporters maintain that foreign government practices and 
trade policies are the major factor driving milk protein imports. 
Specifically, they argue that large subsidies given to European Union 
(EU) producers hinder the ability for U.S. producers to compete with 
imports and preclude the development of a U.S. casein, caseinates and 
MPC industry.
    In its report the ITC rejects the basic premise of this argument in 
noting that ``if price leadership exists in the U.S. MPC market, it is 
exercised by the Oceania countries.'' \1\ Further, the ITC report 
states that due to ``dairy policy changes in the EU, it is unlikely 
that the conditions that contributed to the increase in imports from 
1998-2000 will be repeated in the future.'' \2\ In fact, the most 
recent data backs up the ITC's analysis, as imports of low protein 
``blended'' MPC from the EU have disappeared. Currently, 90% of the 
imported milk proteins come from Australia and New Zealand, where there 
is no government intervention in the dairy markets. Moreover, the vast 
majority of these imports contain at least 70 percent protein, and as 
such are not substitutes for NFDM, while what MPC is now being imported 
from the EU is product containing 80 percent or more protein that does 
not receive export subsidies. Furthermore, what production aid that did 
exist for casein in the EU has been virtually eliminated since 2003 
rendering that program irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Conditions of Competition for Milk Proteins in the U.S. Market, 
Investigation No. 332-453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004, 9-4
    \2\ Conditions of Competition for Milk Protein Products in the U.S. 
Market, Investigation No. 332-453, USITC Publication 3692, May 2004, 
xxix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, U.S. MPC commercial production has begun in Portales, 
New Mexico without a U.S. subsidy; dispelling any idea that the U.S. 
producers are not able to compete against imports. The plant in 
Portales is profitably responding to the market demand for MPC and is 
running at full capacity. As a result of its success, a second plant is 
being developed in Arizona to meet market demand, and when both plants 
are operational (not to mention the prospect of additional capacity) 
nearly half of U.S. domestic demand will be met by U.S. domestic 
production--a dramatic change from just over 2 years ago.
There is no U.S. Trade Law ``Loophole``
    TRQ supporters argue that imports of milk protein are circumventing 
U.S. trade laws by entering through a ``loophole'' in the U.S. tariff 
schedule. However, the ITC specifically refuted the ``loophole'' 
argument noting that both Congress and the President had carefully 
considered the tariff treatment of casein, caseinates and MPCs. Imports 
of these products have never been subject to Section 22 quotas 
following formal investigations. In 1984, long before the Uruguay Round 
negotiations, Congress created specific tariff lines to account for 
MPCs, that were not subject to quota. Furthermore, in 2003, U.S. 
Customs found that imported MPCs, casein and caseinates did not 
circumvent nonfat dry milk TRQs, and were correctly classified under 
non-quota provisions.
H.R. 521 Violates U.S. Trade Commitments
    Increasing tariffs on MPC, casein and caseinates would violate our 
WTO obligations and the U.S. Free Trade Agreement with Australia. In 
these trade pacts, the U.S. has agreed to maintain a certain level of 
duties. If the U.S. unilaterally decides to raise its bound tariffs, 
Australia and other countries supplying these dairy proteins to the 
U.S. market must be compensated or they have the right to retaliate by 
imposing trade sanctions on U.S. exports.
    In addition to the economic effects of compensation and/or 
retaliation, the U.S. would lose its credibility to negotiate reduced 
trade barriers in the WTO Doha Development Agenda. As a leader in 
advocating free trade, it would be fundamentally inconsistent for the 
U.S. to erect any new trade barriers. Supporting H.R. 521 is contrary 
to U.S. trade principles and would undermine our mission to liberalize 
trade in the WTO Doha Round and future trade agreements.
Milk Protein Imports Do Not Affect Domestic Milk Prices
    Proponents of the TRQ argue that U.S. imports of MPC, casein and 
caseinates depress milk prices. However, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture 2004 all-milk price paid to farmers was $16.04 per 
hundredweight (cwt), the highest ever, while the average has been 
$13.57 cwt for the last ten years. The forecasts for 2005 peg the all-
milk price as the third highest on record.
     The 2004 ITC report also found that there was no direct 
relationship between imports of milk proteins and farm milk prices over 
the study period. The report stated that ``[t]he data do not show a 
clear and direct relationship between imports of milk protein products 
and the all-milk price in all years.'' \3\ The report also noted that 
the ITC reviewed a broad range of studies by prominent dairy economists 
and, ``[e]ven though these studies differed in terms of modeling 
approaches, commodity coverage, and base year, they generally found 
that imports of milk protein products have had little impact on farm-
level prices in the U.S. market.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Ibid, 9-4
    \4\ Ibid, 9-23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk Protein Imports Do Not Displace Domestic Milk Production
    TRQ supporters have made the argument that imports of casein, 
caseinate and MPC have displaced domestically produced milk proteins, 
principally NFDM, in the U.S. marketplace. However, the U.S. domestic 
market is extremely robust for NFDM notwithstanding the imports. The 
most recent data, as reported by the U.S. Dairy Export Council, 
indicates that NFDM prices in June 2005 averaged 16% higher than the 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) purchase support price. 
Additionally, the CCC has not bought NFDM for 35 weeks. Further, the 
ITC report concluded that imports of casein, caseinate and MPC may have 
substituted for only 1.27 percent of U.S. milk protein production from 
1998-2002.
    In sum, there are many substantive reasons to reject H.R. 521. The 
bill is a poster child for trade protectionism; is anti-consumer; 
violates U.S. trade agreements and is damaging to U.S. trade objectives 
in the current WTO Round. For all these reasons we urge the Trade 
Subcommittee to omit H.R. 521 from the miscellaneous tariff bill.
    On behalf of the following consumer organizations, associations and 
food companies and employees, we appreciate your consideration of our 
views.
                                        American Bakers Association
                                 American Feed Industry Association
                                           Americans for Tax Reform
                                     American Frozen Food Institute
                                            American Meat Institute
                                       Arla Foods Ingredients, Inc.
                                                BL Ingredients, LLC
                                                ConAgra Foods, Inc.
                      Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
                     Committee to Assure the Availability of Casein
                                          Consumers for World Trade
                                        Davisco Foods International
                                                 Dean Foods Company
                               DMV International Nutritionals, Inc.
                                          Erie Foods, International
                                                      Euro Proteins
                                               Fonterra (USA), Inc.
                                    Food Distributors International
                                          Food Products Association
                                                 General Mills Inc.
                                          Glanbia Ingredients, Inc.
                                   Grocery Manufacturers of America
                                              Hershey Foods Company
                                                 H.J. Heinz Company
                                                          IDB, Inc.
                              International Dairy Foods Association
                                                         Kerry Inc.
                                           Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
                                            Lactalis/Sorrento, Inc.
                                                 Lactoprot USA, Inc
                                                    Masterfoods USA
                                 National Confectioners Association
                                           National Taxpayers Union
                                    National Frozen Pizza Institute
                                                        Nestle, USA
                                                 Novartis Nutrition
                                                 Pet Food Institute
                                                     RetireSafe.org
                                                Sargento Foods Inc.
                                                    Slim-Fast Foods
                                           The Schwann Food Company
                                            Saputo Cheese USA, Inc.
                                              Schreiber Foods, Inc.
                                             Snack Food Association

                                 

                                            Davis, California 95617
                                                    August 31, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Thank you,
                                                      Muzhdah Aimaq

                                 

                                    American Numismatic Association
                                   Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
                                                    August 24, 2005
E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing on behalf of the American Numismatic Association (ANA) 
to oppose the imposition of import restrictions on coins proposed in 
conjunction with H.R. 915 (the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads 
of Civilization Act).
    The ANA is a nonprofit, educational organization chartered by the 
United States Congress to promote the study and collection of money and 
related items for research, interpretation and preservation of history 
and culture from ancient times to the present. The ANA has almost 
33,000 active members in the United States and our numbers are growing. 
Many of our members collect Greek coins struck thousands of years ago 
in what is now Afghanistan. Others collect more obscure money that 
circulated in the area, including coins struck by the Mauryan Empire, 
the Kushans, the White Huns, the Turks, the Mongols, and the Savid 
Dynasties.
    Although the ANA supports reasonable efforts to protect Afghan 
collections and archaeological sites, the ANA is concerned that 
application of import restrictions to numismatics, including coins, 
paper money, tokens and medals, will adversely impact the longstanding 
legitimate trade and collecting of any such items. Typically, 
numismatic items do not carry any provenance with them, particularly of 
the sort contemplated by U.S. Customs under the governing statute. 
Thus, a legitimate holder of numismatic material may not be able to 
establish the necessary historical ownership of legally purchased 
numismatics to avoid forfeiture of his or her collection under the 
contemplated import restrictions. Likewise, numismatic items are not 
the type of cultural antiquities that should be included in H.R. 915. 
Coins and other forms of money were often mass produced making them a 
common circulating item of trade and barter rather than the type of 
antiquity intended to be protected by H.R. 915.
    U.S. citizens have enjoyed collecting ancient money since the 
American Revolution (and citizens of the Colonies enjoyed coin 
collecting before the revolution). President John Quincy Adams was a 
serious collector of ancient Greek and Roman coins. Other Presidents 
like Theodore Roosevelt and, more recently, Ronald Reagan and Bill 
Clinton have appreciated owning the type of coinage that would be 
covered under any proposed restrictions. There is no supportable reason 
that could be advanced to impose import restrictions on coins, 
particularly given the harm the imposition of import restrictions would 
cause to legitimate collectors and individuals dealing in such 
numismatic items.
    By providing an exemption for numismatics, we believe that Congress 
can still achieve the goal of protecting ``culturally significant'' 
Afghan antiquities while preserving numismatics as an important 
historical and cultural resource for future generations of Americans. 
On behalf of the ANA and its nearly 33,000 members, I hope that the 
Subcommittee on Trade will exclude numismatics from the import 
restrictions of H.R. 915. Should you have any questions, please do not 
hesitate to contact me.
            Sincerely,
                                              Christopher Cipoletti
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                        American Numismatic Society
                                           New York, New York 10038
                                                    August 20, 2005
E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    We are Trustees of the American Numismatic Society (ANS). The ANS, 
founded in 1858, is arguably the nation's premier numismatic 
institution, and the only one with the unique honor of displaying the 
highlights of its collection at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
We are writing in our individual capacity solely as concerned citizens 
to oppose efforts to impose restrictions on Americans importing coins 
based at least in part on erroneous information contained in the 
subject legislation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ One of the major predicates for the bill's ``emergency import 
restrictions'' is the claim at finding 16 that, ``100 percent of the 
objects [from the Kabul National Museum] were stolen and vandalized.'' 
However, it has now been reported that most of the important items 
thought to be missing from the Afghan National Museum (including coins) 
have in fact been found in excellent condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In particular, we express deep concern about proposals to shift the 
legal burden of proof to show that a particular coin did not come from 
a country with restrictive cultural property laws onto collectors, 
professional numismatists and institutions holding coins. Such 
proposals seek to deter the entrance of looted materials into the 
numismatic trade, but at the cost of imposing an unfair, unworkable and 
unnecessary burden on those holding coins legitimately. Domestic law 
already bars entry of any coins or other artifacts that are proven to 
be stolen, and there are less intrusive means of encouraging 
preservation of archaeological sites in source countries. These means 
include better policing of archaeological sites, public education 
programs, reasonable regulation of metal detectors, and promulgation 
fair laws that encourage members of the public to report their finds 
with the prospect of an award. In contrast, it is unfair to assume that 
collectors, dealers and institutions holding coins can show their 
provenance when millions of historical coins have been widely traded 
since the Renaissance without any requirement to show their chain of 
ownership.
    A distinctive feature of coinage compared with those of most other 
artifacts explains the reason why it is so difficult to establish a 
coin's origins. Today, a nation issues money for circulation within its 
particular boundaries as a symbol of its jealously guarded 
independence. However, historically, and until quite recently, it was 
commonplace to find a variety of coinages in circulation within any 
given country. Such a situation was indeed the case in the U.S. before 
foreign coins were demonetized in 1857. Given wide circulation 
patterns, determining the provenance of any coin or coins residing in a 
museum or private collection is usually deemed impossible.
    American citizens have enjoyed collecting historical coins since 
before the American Revolution. Serious American collectors of ancient 
and foreign coins have included President John Quincy Adams. Teddy 
Roosevelt is said to have carried an ancient Greek coin as a pocket 
piece, and ancient Greek coins of the sort contemplated for potential 
restriction inspired his ``pet project'' to redesign our own coinage in 
the early part of the 20th Century.
    By providing an exemption for coins, we believe that Congress can 
still achieve the goal of protecting ``culturally significant'' Afghan 
antiquities while preserving numismatics as an important historical and 
cultural resource for future generations of Americans.
            Sincerely,
                                                      John W. Adams
                                                         Boston, MA

                                                   Kenneth L. Edlow
                                                       New York, NY

                                              Prof. Peter P. Gaspar
                                                      St. Louis, MO

                                                   Robert A. Kandel
                                                   New Rochelle, NY

                                                Clifford L. Mishler
                                                           Iola, WI

                                                    Emilio M. Ortiz
                                                       San Juan, PR

                                                Douglass F. Rohrman
                                                     Kenilworth, IL

                                             Stanley DeForest Scott
                                                       New York, NY

                                                   David B. Simpson
                                                        Tenafly, NJ

                                                     Peter K. Tompa
                                                     Washington, DC

                                          Arnold-Peter C. Weiss, MD
                                                     Barrington, RI

                                                John Whitney Walter
                                                       Plandome, NY

                                 

                              American Schools of Oriental Research
                                                  Boston University
                                                   Boston, MA 02215
                                                     19 August 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    As Executive Director of the premiere North American organization 
conducting archaeological research in the Middle East, I worry deeply 
about any losses in the archaeological record which might take away 
from our understanding of or appreciation for world culture. But I am 
especially concerned about preserving the cultural heritage of 
countries within the arena of our work. The American Schools of 
Oriental Research (ASOR) was founded in 1900 and has been working for 
the past century plus to understand and preserve for posterity the 
material culture of the broader Middle East.
    In order to contribute to the accomplishment of this task, ASOR has 
adopted strict policies governing antiquities from the region (http://
www.asor.org/policy.htm), which are based on international laws and the 
intentional cooperation among countries around the globe. Looting of 
sites and trafficking in artifacts represent a global scourge and we 
want to support any legislation which will stem the rising tide of 
illegal exporting and importing of these irreplaceable material 
cultural remains.
    In the spirit of these principles and goals, I wish to add my voice 
to those urging your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it. The looting of sites and theft from 
museums in Afghanistan have been significant problems for many years. 
As with Iraq, the United States has undertaken a special relationship 
with Afghanistan. Concern for preservation of the cultural heritage of 
Afghanistan must be given equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Cordially,
                                            Douglas R. Clark, Ph.D.
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                      Ancient Coin Collectors Guild
                                        Gainesville, Missouri 65655
                                                  September 2, 2005
Dear Congressman Shaw;

    The provisions of H.R. 915, as proposed, call for import 
restrictions on antique and ancient collectable coins. The Ancient Coin 
Collectors Guild respectfully opposes any such restrictions. Coins, 
first of all are typically not significant cultural property since they 
were produced in huge numbers and by design were exchanged across 
national and cultural boundaries, both in antiquity as monetary 
instruments and in modern times as collectables. The value of coins as 
cultural ambassadors is tremendous and this fact is well recognized by 
the government of Afghanistan.
    In a letter from the Afghan Embassy to the Ancient Coin Collectors 
Guild, First Secretary Hekmat Karzai wrote: ``Clearly, it is vital for 
Afghanistan to preserve its heritage, yet we also recognize the need to 
teach individuals about the wonderful history of Afghanistan. We have 
to find a balance where both of the objectives are met.'' We absolutely 
agree. The way to achieve this balance is not through import 
restrictions, but through cooperative efforts to identify stolen 
property, enforce existing laws against looting, and return stolen 
items to Afghanistan when they are recovered.
    The ACCG has offered to facilitate the latter by hosting a recovery 
center on the guild website and launching a serious campaign among 
private collectors to recover any items which enter the market 
illegally. Private collectors have been vilified by certain 
ideologically driven members of the archaeological community and much 
publicity has attended the release of Roger Atwood's ``Stealing 
History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. 
There are approximately 50,000 collectors of ancient coins in the 
United States and they simply do not represent an ``evil'' force. This 
point is made clear very well in a recent review of the Atwood book by 
Dr. Alan Walker. Dr. Walker received his training as a Classical 
Archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania and has the unique 
perspectives of an archaeologist and a professional numismatist. The 
review is published online at http://accg.us/issues/editorials/pro/
walker along with other topical articles. I attach this review here for 
inclusion into the record on this issue because it presents an 
articulate and passionate counterpoint to the arguments typically used 
in condemning the collector market and private ownership of virtually 
any cultural property. Please consider the serious impact on American 
citizens that the proposed import restrictions of H.R. 915 would 
unnecessarily create.
            Respectfully yours,
                                                    Wayne G. Sayles

                                   ----------
    Stealing History. Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the 
Ancient World. By Roger Atwood. New York, 2004. 337 pp., frontispiece, 
map, 27 photos. Clothbound with dust jacket. (ISBN 0-312-32406-5) 
$25.95
    This is a fascinating, disturbing, well-written and very pernicious 
book that beautifully blends true facts with skewed and, often, very 
biased reasoning to produce a perfect example of the politically 
correct anti-collector, anti-museum and anti-art trade propaganda we 
hear all the time from radical archaeologists and their allies. I think 
this book has received a tremendous amount of hype and will have a 
great deal of influence, so it is important that all collectors, 
especially including coin collectors, know what's in it and know how to 
react when and if they are challenged, or even attacked, because of 
their collecting interests.
    RA's basic focus is on two areas in which he has more than a little 
expertise, Peru, where there has long been widespread looting of tombs 
for objects in precious metal, terracotta figural pottery and fabrics, 
and in Iraq, where there has been widespread looting of virtually 
everything. Extrapolating worldwide, he firmly believes that unless 
something is done, all accessible archaeological sites will be totally 
destroyed by looters by 2050. Needless to say, what he thinks needs to 
be done is to basically ban the collecting, whether by public or 
private institutions or by individuals, of anything without a full 
provenance (and what he means by provenance is a secure chain of 
ownership going back to a licensed excavation; with, in addition, proof 
that the object legally left the country in which it was found--this 
means that lots of material properly excavated and then taken out of 
countries in the 19th century falls under a cloud because, officially, 
it shouldn't have left). In addition, he also insists on making the 
assumption (in common with the radical archaeologists) that anything 
lacking a provenance simply has to have come out of the ground very 
recently. Another brilliant idea he has is to slap ``an indefinite 
worldwide moratorium on trade in undocumented antiquities made of gold, 
silver, and other precious metals'' (p. 244). This, he thinks, would be 
a terrific help in the fight against looting because he believes that 
looters mostly search for gold objects, tossing out or destroying other 
things they find as worthless. Of course, it actually shows how out of 
touch with reality RA is: for thousands of years looters only searched 
for precious objects, which were, in fact, invariably melted down (the 
spectacular Brescello Hoard of 1714, which contained ca. 80,000 late 
Republican aurei--the latest being Crawford 534 of 38 BC--was, after 
the rarities were sorted out and a relatively small number of other 
pieces went off to collectors, almost entirely used to make ducats!). 
While looters may well throw out pots in Peru (they have apparently 
found so many that there is no market), they don't anywhere else, so 
all RA's idea would do is ensure that all precious metal objects would 
be treated as they used to be: melted into convenient and anonymous 
bars.
    Trying to argue in favor of collecting, whether public or private, 
is very difficult because radical archaeologists have done a very good 
job of occupying the moral high ground. To them, and to the vocal 
supporters of the UNESCO accord of 1970, virtually all private 
ownership of cultural objects is an anathema; thus, it is easy for them 
to condemn all their opponents as heartless, greedy, elitists who 
profit from the destruction of mankind's past. Yet there are a lot of 
facts that RA and others of his ilk are very good at selectively 
ignoring: some that they don't like, and some that they think might, 
perhaps, confuse the issue.
    For example, why is it that the looting problem in England is so 
much less drastic than in other areas of the world? The answer probably 
is that the essential fairness of the British system makes it very 
likely that honest finders will report anything they discover because 
they know they will be treated properly. If the state lays claim to 
what they have found they get a very fair reward (usually equal to the 
effective market value), otherwise they get to do whatever they wish 
with their discovery. When builders run into archaeological remains 
during the course of construction projects, rescue excavations are 
carried out, but the builders are given full recompense for the time 
lost. In addition, landowners never have to worry about having their 
lands expropriated by the state for archaeological reasons with minimal 
compensation. As in the U.S., the state can utilize its powers of 
eminent domain, but the owner must receive the land's full market 
value.
    Elsewhere, of course, especially in the major source countries, all 
objects found in the ground, whether on public or private land, ipso 
facto belong to the state, with no right of private ownership 
whatsoever (this is the case in Egypt, among many other places). 
Rewards, if given at all, are arbitrary in nature and usually have no 
relation to the object's national or international market value. 
Farmers or builders who run into archaeological remains can find 
themselves in severe trouble: farming land can be expropriated at an 
arbitrarily low value, especially if the landowner lacks political 
connections (since archaeological remains preclude building or farming 
work, the land's value is automatically downgraded to benefit the 
state), and building work can be held up for so long, with negligible 
compensation, that the contractor and the owner can suffer severe 
financial losses, if not bankruptcy (this does not happen, of course, 
with state projects). Therefore, it often seems better for builders to 
bulldoze ancient remains than to report them. The fact that landowners 
lack ownership rights in objects found within the soil means that there 
is absolutely no incentive for them to protect their land from looters 
(especially since looters occasionally pay the landowners a fee for 
`allowing' them to dig, while reporting ancient remains to the 
authorities can lead to expropriations). It should be immediately 
obvious that draconian confiscatory laws that provide little or no fair 
compensation to honest finders or landowners simply have to be counter-
productive: Italy has had laws like that for generations, and for 
generations people have ignored them because they were so blatantly 
unfair. After all, if a farm or an estate has been owned by a single 
family for generations, why should the state own everything found there 
and not the family?
    Another fact, which is almost entirely ignored by RA and the 
archaeologists, is that people in most of the source countries are 
often rather impoverished. This clearly is a major reason why chance 
finds and looted material are sold rather than turned into the 
government. After all, the average annual per capita income in Peru is 
something like $5000 (but with most rural villagers making less than 
half of this amount) so selling a small object for $20 or $50 or a few 
$100 can make a real difference in the seller's standard of living. 
This is true in virtually every source country (the per capita income 
in Turkey is about $6600--much higher in the big cities and far lower 
in rural districts). Fair and prompt rewards, based on local 
circumstances (i.e., if an object is worth $50,000 on Madison Avenue, 
but the local runner will only pay $400 in Turkey, a reward of $550 
will do perfectly), would end a great deal of destruction. A perfect 
example is the famous Dekadrachm Hoard found near Elmali in Turkey. At 
the time it was found Turkish law apparently provided for rewards, but 
only up to a certain amount of money. No matter what a coin was, the 
maximum the finder could expect was the equivalent of $150--if a group 
of coins was found, the maximum reward, regardless of what they might 
be or how many they were, was $6000. The villagers probably knew this 
and so took their coins to a middleman who paid them, according to 
court papers, the equivalent of $168,000--twenty-eight times what the 
official reward would have been! As everyone knows, this hoard 
ultimately went for $4,000,000 (over 660 times the official reward!!) 
to an American consortium; then, after years of legal wrangling, it 
went back to Turkey. Can you imagine how much the Turks must have paid 
in legal fees? One European numismatist had an hour's talk with Larry 
Kaye, the lead attorney for Turkey, and his assistant, a junior lawyer 
brought along to act as secretary: this probably cost the Turks $500 
for the senior lawyer, $300 for the junior and $20 for the coffee! And 
this case must have consumed thousands of billing hours!
    Obviously, had Elmali been in England, the hoard probably would 
have been reported when it was found, would have been properly 
excavated with exploration of the surrounding area, would have ended up 
in the British Museum, and the proud finder and the land owner would 
have divided a multi-million reward (as actually happened with the 
famous late Roman Hoxne hoard, discovered in 1992). But, someone will 
say, Turkey doesn't have that kind of money. True, but if those 
villagers would have been confident that they'd get a tax-free, legal, 
reward of $175,000 or $200,000, a fraction of what the hoard was worth 
internationally but more than they would have received selling on the 
black market (and a fraction of what Turkey must have paid in American 
legal fees), they'd have turned it in like a shot! Wouldn't this have 
been better for archaeology?
    Villagers are not stupid: if they feel that their own government is 
cheating them or, in fact, stealing from them, they will refuse to turn 
in the things they find. Is this the fault of collectors?
    In fact, isn't it clear that bad laws in the source countries are a 
major factor contributing to why finds go unreported, sites are damaged 
or destroyed, and smuggling is rampant? Why aren't archaeologists 
clamoring for the source countries to change their laws into ones like 
those in England, where finders are treated so fairly that an ever 
increasing amount of often vital archaeological information has been 
gathered thanks to the enthusiastic cooperation of finders and 
landowners (for the astonishingly successful Portable Antiquities 
Scheme, see http://www.finds.org.uk/index.asp)?
    Why, indeed?
    Now we come to the very important part that political correctness 
has to play in the debate over antiquities. As everyone knows it has 
become very fashionable to blame the rich western European powers, and 
by extension the Americans, for most of the world's ills. Among left-
wing academics it is normal to view white males of western European 
origin as being responsible for colonialism, racism, sexism, 
capitalism, class divisions, slavery, all manner of oppressions, and, 
of course, for the pillage of wealth, artifacts and works of art from 
lesser developed and Third World states (it should be noted that ALL 
source countries consider themselves to be part of this general class 
of countries). Thus, suggesting that such countries enact rational laws 
in emulation of Great Britain is a complete non-starter: after all, 
didn't Britain colonize vast areas of the world; weren't treasures from 
Greece, Italy, Turkey, India, China, the Middle East, Nigeria, Egypt, 
et al., taken by British travelers, bought by English lords, or looted 
by British armies, all to adorn museums in Great Britain? In many ways 
the irrational nature of many source country cultural heritage laws is 
simply a reaction against the events of the past: ``Those clever 
Europeans tricked us by taking so many artifacts from our country at a 
time when we couldn't resist them (and, to be honest, at a time when we 
actually didn't want any of it since we thought it was valueless and 
that the foreigners were crazy!), so now we are going to keep 
everything!'' Thus, there are museum store rooms in the source 
countries that are positively jam packed with objects, most of which 
will never be on display and many of which have never been published 
(the store rooms of the archaeological museum of Naples are notorious 
in this regard): if some of this material was sold, after being 
recorded, there would be more than enough money to publish, inventory, 
conserve and display all the rest.
    But why don't all those American and western European 
archaeologists, who are such vehement defenders of ancient sites in the 
source countries, try to get those ineffective laws changed, rather 
than just attacking collectors, museums and dealers in their own 
countries? The simple reason is that it is against their interest to do 
so.
    Any foreign archaeologist who wants to excavate a site or study 
museum material in a source country has to get an official permit from 
that country's ministry of culture to do so. Such permits are not just 
given out to anyone who asks: usually foreign scholars have to go 
through their own country's institute in the source country (like the 
American, Australian, Austrian, British, Canadian, French, German, 
Italian, Swedish, Swiss, etc. institutes in Athens), and they have to 
meet certain standards. One absolutely sure way of NOT getting a permit 
is to say or do something that source country officials don't approve 
of; like, for example, suggesting that the country's laws ought to be 
changed because they don't work and are counter-productive. No American 
archaeologist working, or wanting to work, in Turkey would ever be 
crazy enough to publicly criticize Turkish laws, since that would 
result in a rather rapid career-change once the Turkish authorities 
heard of it (just for fun, if you really want to get a foreign 
archaeologist working in Turkey really upset, try getting him or her to 
express a public opinion on who was responsible for the genocidal 
massacres of the Armenians that took place in Asia Minor in the late 
19th century and during World War I--you may be amazed to find that a 
distinguished professor, highly knowledgable about ancient and medieval 
history, just so happens to know nothing at all about modern history). 
In a well-known case that resulted in an American dealer returning a 
group of Mycenaean jewelry to Greece, it is said that one of the 
reasons why he decided to settle and not fight it out in court is that 
he could get no recognized expert in Mycenaean art to testify on his 
behalf: specifically that Mycenaean objects could be found in many 
places in the eastern Mediterranean (Italy, Cyprus, the Levant and 
Egypt) rather than just in Greece, as the Greek government maintained. 
The obvious reason why they wouldn't is that if they did so they would 
be banned from working in Greece for life.
    The converse is true when an American archaeologist attacks 
collectors, dealers or museums in the U.S. for having material that he 
believes was looted from the source country where he excavates: he 
becomes a hero! This is how it works. The American professor makes an 
impassioned speech, demanding that some item or other be returned to 
Italy from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. This speech gets 
reported in a number of Italian papers, the professor is given an award 
by an Italian heritage group, he gets accolades from Italian 
archaeologists, and his excavation permit is speedily renewed. Back in 
the U.S., the Metropolitan issues a dry statement about legal ownership 
but otherwise ignores our professor (to be sure, they probably won't 
give him a grant). There are no reprisals and his stature will be 
enhanced among his peers. The same thing would be true if he attacks 
American private collectors--he looks good and nothing bad happens to 
him (of course, if a junior faculty member launched a violent diatribe 
against a collector, not knowing that the collector was an alumnus of 
the university in which he teaches and that the collector had up to 
that point intended on donating $50 million for a new gymnasium, our 
young professor's chances for tenure might evaporate--but then he'd 
become a martyr for academic freedom and advance his career).
    Thus, it ought to be obvious that every time one of the radical 
archaeologists attacks collectors and the antiquity trade in America 
and in Western Europe for being the primary cause of looting, he may be 
sincere, but he is neither unbiased nor honest. Rather, by focusing 
solely on the trade, he is, for political reasons, deliberately 
ignoring all the contributing factors caused by unfair and impractical 
laws in the source countries (that would be ``blaming the victim''). 
The really radical even go so far as to object very strongly to rewards 
because they believe a) that since the state claims all objects 
discovered in the ground, it is the duty of every citizen to turn in 
anything found, thus making rewards unnecessary (in some countries even 
picking up something lying on the ground is against the law!); b) that 
basing rewards on market prices is highly improper because if the trade 
itself is illegal in the source country, basing rewards on the prices 
for items that reached foreign markets illicitly is absurd since those 
prices should be ignored; c) that most source countries are relatively 
impoverished so that the payment of rewards would be an unacceptable 
expense; and d) that since looting is clearly the fault of wealthy 
collectors in the West, eliminating the collectors would eliminate any 
need for rewards.
    RA also goes on and on about how much valuable evidence is lost due 
to looting, and how many `priceless' artifacts are lost to the source 
countries. In fact, this is a refrain constantly heard whenever the 
radical archaeologists attack collectors; but is it true? Yes, to some 
extent it is. A complete tomb complex can tell us a tremendous amount 
about the occupant and the society in which he lived, but when it's 
looted, the finders will only be looking for salable objects (which are 
often dispersed so that their connections are lost) and will dig 
through and destroy organic remains and poorly preserved minor items 
that would have told archaeologists a great deal. This, of course, is 
not the case when something is professionally excavated, especially 
when it is published and made available for study (not always the case, 
alas): yet just because it is properly excavated does not necessarily 
mean that it is of any importance. After all, there are many things 
that are found, which are of types we already have, or provide evidence 
for things we already know. For example, one old-time classical 
archaeologist arranged for state-of-the-art water sieving and other 
evidence-retention methods to be used for an excavation of a Greek 
urban site. Aside from tiny fragments of wine and oil vessels, plates, 
cups and cheese strainers, and bones from meat animals such as goats, 
sheep, cattle and swine, among the items found, which otherwise might 
not have been, were grape and olive pits, remains of pulses and 
legumes, and fish bones. But, as he remarked later, ``we already knew 
from ancient literature that the ancient Greeks, like the modern ones, 
ate olives, grapes, beans, lentils, various kinds of meat, fish and 
cheese, drank wine and used oil. Was spending all this money and effort 
to confirm what we already knew worth it?'' The answer is, of course, 
probably not. In fact, while often not mentioned it is no secret that 
vast numbers of unimportant artifacts found in excavations are dumped 
after study (they tend to be used as fill for fully excavated ancient 
wells) since they tell us nothing and there is no need, or space, for 
their storage (for example, if excavators discover a room containing 25 
complete and c. 100 fragmentary storage amphorae, all of the same type, 
they will probably retain all of the complete ones, but only a very 
small number of the fragments--perhaps destined for destructive 
analysis--with the rest being dumped).
    The most extraordinary comment, now made constantly, is that the 
artifacts being looted are ``priceless treasures of inestimable 
value'', not only for the cultural heritage of the country involved, 
but on the market as well. For example, at the time of writing there 
has been a big hoo-haa about a Marine who bought eight cylinder seals 
from a trinket seller in Iraq for $200, and brought them back home with 
him. Curious about what they were, he went to the University Museum in 
Philadelphia and asked about them. Well, the curator there immediately 
recognized them as `priceless treasures' [actually he is reported to 
have said they were worth $25,000!!!] that had to have come from 
ancient Mesopotamia (which was smart of him considering he was the 
curator of Near Eastern Art), and that they had to have been exported 
illegally from Iraq. He immediately contacted the FBI. The Marine was 
shocked and very properly and honestly turned them over to the FBI to 
be repatriated to Iraq (they are now temporarily on display in the 
University Museum; see, http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb05/
iraqstones022305.htm--you can find images of all eight on the web as 
well). The media went crazy about this wonderful return of these rare 
and exciting and oh so important and valuable objects. But, of course, 
no one has bothered to ask whether they are really valuable or 
important . . . and, sorry to tell you, they're not. They are surely 
real, but all eight, to my untrained eye, are of known types (found in 
museum and private collections all over the world, including Iraq, and 
in dealers' stocks); are of no particular artistic, historic or 
archaeological importance; and, altogether, might be worth $2000 (in a 
major Christie's or Sotheby's antiquity sale none would be worth 
selling as a single lot; in fact, all eight would be sold together). 
What's going on?
    The simple fact is that the VAST majority of objects that the 
radical archaeologists and their media friends term `priceless 
treasures of cultural heritage' are neither priceless nor treasures. 
Since the archaeologists are not stupid, why do they make these claims? 
After all, they didn't used to; quite the contrary.
    Not that long ago the radical, anti-collector archaeologists spent 
a great deal of effort trying to convince the world that ancient 
objects were, in fact, just junk of no real value, unworthy of being 
collected. The reason why people wanted them, or `esteemed them' as the 
radicals would say, is that dealers hyped them up, in the same way that 
the `art' of Damian Hirst and Jeff Koons has been. In their eyes, 
ancient objects were worthy of being in museums where they could be 
studied by real scholars (such as themselves), but private collectors 
were making fools out of themselves by collecting them. There are two 
absolutely iconic studies in this vein, both roughly contemporary. The 
first, by Michael Vickers and David Gill, is Artful Crafts: Ancient 
Greek Silverware and Pottery (Oxford 1994). Vickers is a very good 
scholar who likes shaking things up and is, perhaps, most familiar to 
numismatists from an article in NC 1985, entitled, Early Greek Coinage, 
a Reassessment (pp. 1-44) in which he tried to radically down-date the 
beginning of ancient Greek coinage. His well written and thought 
provoking theories were, three years later, totally demolished by 
Margaret C. Root's wonderful article in NC 1988, Evidence from 
Persepolis for the dating of Persian and archaic Greek Coinage (pp. 1-
12). In Artful Crafts he argued that all Greek painted pottery (Black 
Figure, Red Figure, White Ground, etc.) was designed to be a cheap 
imitation of the luxurious gold, silver and ivory vessels supposedly 
used by the rich, and was, in itself, of no importance. Thus, it had 
nothing to do with Greek painting, only with metal work, and all the 
years of research by art historians into `hands' and named artists was 
mostly a waste of time. For him, Attic Red Figure was related to the 
true art of precious metal vases in the same way as Martha Stewart 
porcelain at Walmart was related to Royal Copenhagen: i.e., not at all! 
He even suggests that the history of the `esteem' for ancient painted 
pottery goes back to the dealers who worked to sell Lord Hamilton's 
large collection of `vases' (the radicals prefer to call them pots 
because `vase' has a connotation of class and value!) by convincing 
`gullible' collectors that they represented the finest of Greek art, 
rather than as the Melmac that he would prefer to see them as! The 
underlying message was, ``You stupid collectors, you've been fooled for 
200 years into thinking this crap was art, even though it was made as a 
cheap imitation of no value. Boy, have you been swindled!!!''
    As you might guess, this book caused an immediate uproar among the 
pot folk (or vase specialists), who promptly went to counterattack 
everything he had to say. In the end, of course, the pot people came 
out on top in the scholarly world, and collectors refused to stop 
collecting since they could see for themselves that many of the pots 
were true artistic masterpieces.
    The second study is an article by David Gill and Christopher 
Chippendale: Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for 
Cycladic Figures, AJA 97/3 (1993), pp. 602-673 (see also, http://
www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/chip/chip213.htm). This is another 
beautifully written and very convincing essay, which basically claims 
that the vast majority of Cycladic marble figurines in museums and 
private collections all over the world are all modern fakes because 
virtually none of them have any provenance! Not only that, they go to 
great lengths to `prove' that the figurines are not art, in part by 
suggesting that the people who made them were merely simply farmers who 
had no concept of true art (as if they had whittled them for the kids 
whilst sitting on the back porch). This, of course, is an attack on 
those scholars who studied Cycladic figures and assigned them to 
varying `schools' or, even, to specific `masters' or `hands', thus, in 
G & C's opinion, making the objects more attractive for collectors. 
They also rail against the way the figures are displayed and viewed. 
Modern viewers have always been impressed by the smooth lines and sheer 
whiteness of the figures (they especially influenced famous modern 
artists like Brancussi and Picasso), thus making them seem contemporary 
in spirit, but G & C tell us that we shouldn't look at them this way 
since they were originally garishly painted. In addition, we often 
display them incorrectly since the large tall figures that look so 
ethereal, even Christ-like, when mounted vertically, really were meant 
to be lying down. Thus, modern appreciation for these figures is based 
on false premises because we are not looking at them the way they were 
meant to be looked at when they were made (of course, if they're all 
fake, G & C's efforts to convince us that we're viewing them 
incorrectly seem to be misplaced). Sad to say for G & C, the wide world 
of museums, scholars, collectors and art dealers have resolutely 
refused to be convinced by their brilliantly written dissertation--
Greek archaeologists surely don't believe them since they haven't tried 
to prevent the Greek government from going to court in attempts, 
sometimes successful, at confiscating Cycladic material appearing in 
major auctions (somewhat astoundingly, especially if all this stuff is 
`fake', the catalogue of the greatest collection of unprovenanced and 
illegally excavated Cycladic material in the world, that of the superb 
Goulandris Museum in Athens, was written by none other than that self-
appointed scourge of collectors, Lord Colin Renfrew himself! If this 
isn't world-class hypocrisy, what is?).
    These two extraordinary works were part of a trend that attacked 
collecting and the trade in antiquities by shrilly objecting that 
modern people were appreciating ancient objects for the wrong reasons, 
were placing outrageously high monetary values on them, were viewing 
them in ways they weren't originally meant to be viewed, and were 
displaying them out of their original contexts or far from where they 
were originally made. This last point was particularly bizarre since it 
meant that in their view the only way anyone can truly understand any 
art is to see it where it was made and under the conditions that 
obtained at the time it was created. Using this logic Cycladic art can 
only be understood if it is seen on Naxos, perhaps while drinking an 
ouzaki and munching on a piece of grilled octopus, rather than in 
Athens or Boston or London; and Andy Warhol's works can only be fully 
appreciated in New York City, and only by multi-sexual users of 
recreational drugs, rather than in museums and private homes all over 
the world. It also had the curious result that the old rallying cry of 
the radical archaeologists, that antiquities were the ``common heritage 
of all mankind'', had to be dropped. After all, if Cycladic figures 
were the common heritage of all humankind, it would make sense for them 
to be in museums, and even private collections, all over the world, 
rather than only being the property of the source country where they 
were found as the radicals wished.
    Well, as we know, all these arguments have not been very 
successful, simply because their logic was absurd to begin with, and 
people weren't impressed by them. So what did our radicals do? They 
made a 180+ turn and now claim that all ancient objects are 
inestimable, priceless treasures, of supreme value for the cultural 
heritage of the country in which they are found. That's right, 
everything is priceless: from Palaeolithic stone tools, ordinary 
Neolithic through the Byzantine household pottery, common cylinder 
seals and Roman bronze fibulae, to worn small AE folles of the House of 
Constantine! And since nowadays people all over the world are 
particularly impressed by monetary value (``priceless!'', 
``treasure!''), the radical archaeologists have finally hit on a way to 
impress the media and politicians into believing that a virtual shut 
down of the world's art trade, and the demonization, if not 
criminalization, of collectors is the only way to stop the looting of 
archaeological sites.
    Unfortunately, this strategy seems to be working. In the press, on 
television, and in books like RA's, the antiquities trade, and by 
extension the trade in ancient coins, is under attack as never before; 
with collectors being reviled as the major cause of looting. This is 
being done by highly articulate people who can be quite sincere, but 
whose unquestioning acceptance of the radical archaeologists' programs 
produce biased, one-sided and politically correct reporting.
    How can we fight back? Collectors have to start writing protest 
letters to their political representatives to make their opinions 
heard. We also have to make sure the right questions are asked and 
investigated. Like,
    Why is it that in England, where laws are fair, such a huge amount 
of archaeological finds are reported by the public, often in such 
timely fashion that they can be excavated professionally? Is the fact 
that finders receive prompt and fair rewards for anything wanted by the 
state, while those items not wanted are returned to the finder, a major 
factor behind the widespread acceptance of English heritage laws?
    Why do large numbers of people in the source countries not obey 
their countries' antiquity laws? Is the state's declaration of 
ownership of everything found under the ground, on public or private 
land, one of the direct causes of the black market because rewards for 
compliance are too low to be attractive? Is another cause the fact that 
rewards are less than the amount that local dealers are willing to pay?
    When someone speaks about how important an ancient object is for 
cultural history, or what a `priceless treasure' it is, ask him or her 
why. Why is an ancient pot/bronze figurine/marble sculpture/coin, 
similar or even the same as many others previously known vital for a 
country's heritage?
    The United States is a country built by immigrants, unlike the more 
homogenous states of Europe. At one point Chicago is said to have been 
the second-largest Greek city in the world after Athens, and it is well 
known that millions and millions of Americans have some Italian 
ancestry. Do these people have no right to objects pertaining to their 
heritage? There are surely Greek-Americans and Italian-Americans living 
in the U.S. today whose distant ancestors actually made some of the 
pots, or used some of the coins, found in Greece or Italy today--why 
should these people be excluded from owning such items? If an American 
wants to move to Italy and bring his entire collection with him, he is 
free to do so, but if an Italian wants to move to the USA with his 
paintings, coins and vases, many of his possessions will not be allowed 
out--is this right?
    The radical archaeologists have managed to claim the moral high 
ground in the debate over the trade in coins and antiquities. It is 
about time we push them off it.

                                 

                                Archaeological Institute of America
                                                   Boston, MA 02215
                                                    August 24, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    As President of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), I am 
writing to express my strong support and the support of the AIA for the 
inclusion of H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of 
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain 
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of 
Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants 
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions to 
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other 
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from the cultural 
institutions and archaeological sites of Afghanistan.
    This bill is particularly important since Afghanistan has not yet 
ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention and cannot ask for U.S. Protection 
in the normal way under the current Cultural Property Implementation 
Act of 1983. The more than 30 years of chaos in Afghanistan since their 
revolution in 1974, shortly after the UNESCO Convention was written, 
and lack of effective central authority in the country have prevented 
Afghanistan from taking the important step of ratification. In the last 
two decades looting in Afghanistan has been devastating to that 
country's cultural heritage, and since the destruction of the Bamiyan 
Buddhas by the Taliban in 2001 and the current war there the situation 
has become even worse, rivaling, and if anything, exceeding the more 
familiar situation in Iraq. As partial documentation of this 
devastation, the AIA's website contains a description of the looting of 
some major Afghan archaeological sites (www.archaeological.org, see 
under ``Archaeology Watch, Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage''). Among 
other postings may be found the text of an address ``The Impact of War 
upon Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage'' by Mr. Abdul Wasey Feroozi, 
Director General of the National Institute of Archaeology in Kabul. Mr. 
Feroozi's text is supplemented by photographic documentation with 
captions by Dr. Zemaryalai Tarzi, Director for the French Survey and 
Excavation Archaeological Mission and former Director of Archaeology 
and Conservation of Historical Monuments in Afghanistan. An article on 
Dr.Tarzi's current excavations at Bamiyan was published in the January/
February issue of AIA's popular publication, Archaeology Magazine 
(abstract at www.archaeology.org/0501/abstracts/afghan.html), and since 
1998 there have been several other articles on the cultural heritage 
problems in Afghanistan in the magazine. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan and it is 
very important that concern for preservation of the cultural heritage 
of Afghanistan be given equal consideration.
    Antiquities are looted from sites so that they can be sold at high 
prices to markets in Western Europe and the United States. The looting 
of sites often causes irreversible damage to the sites, destroying 
contextual relationships among artifacts and the contexts in which they 
were used or buried in the past such as architecture, tombs, hearths, 
kitchens, temples. Once those relationships are destroyed it becomes 
impossible to reconstruct the full meaning of such artifacts--how they 
were used and valued in the past and who used them. This information is 
crucial to the full understanding and appreciation of the remains of 
any ancient culture. It is critically important that the President be 
given the authority to prevent the import into the United States of 
looted cultural materials from Afghanistan and thereby reduce the 
incentive fortheft and destruction of archaeological sites in that 
country. Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to 
fulfill its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our 
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
    The AIA was founded in 1879 and chartered by an Act of Congress in 
1906 and is now the oldest and largest non-profit organization in the 
U.S. devoted to archaeology. Our over 8,000 members include not only 
professional archaeologists but also students and members of the 
general public. This latter category makes up a large majority of our 
membership and many of our programs and publications are devoted to 
educating the public about archaeology and cultural heritage and 
fostering an appreciation for the role of archaeology in understanding 
the human past. On behalf of all of our membership I urge you and the 
members of your committee to approve the inclusion of HR 915 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill and help the Afghan people to protect their 
cultural heritage for themselves and for all of us.

                                                   Jane C. Waldbaum
                     President, Archaeological Institute of America

                                 

                                                  Bryn Mawr College
                                           Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2899
                                                    August 24, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan and, according to recent 
news reports, terrorist groups are selling these illegal antiquities to 
support their terrorist attacks (see attached article from the German 
news magazine Der Spiegel). So aside from protecting the cultural 
heritage of Afghanistan, there is good reason for the United States to 
enact such legislation on the grounds of national and international 
security. The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan 
have been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. As the attached 
article states, Mohammed Atta was attempting to sell in either 2000 or 
2001 antiquities from Afghanistan, presumably, according to German 
authorities, for the purpose of financing the purchase of an airplane. 
He was referred to Sotheby's auction house. U.S. legislators ought to 
want to act very decisively on legislation that will impose penalties 
for anyone engaging in or abetting the sale of illegal antiquities. 
Therefore, as a first step, it is crucial that the President be given 
this authority to prevent the import into the United States of looted 
cultural materials and thereby reduce the incentive for theft and 
destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment of this legislation will 
help the United States to fulfill its obligations to the Afghan people 
and help to enrich our understanding of the world's and our own 
cultural heritage.
                                                    James C. Wright
                                            Professor and Chairman,
              Member of the Professional Responsibilities Committee
                                Archaeological Institute of America
                                 ______
                                 
Der Spiegel 29/2005, p. 20

    ``ART FOR FINANCING TERRORISM? According to new information from 
the Federal Crime Office (BKA) the pilot-terrorists from Hamburg 
possibly attempted to finance the 9/11 attack through the sale of 
illegal art. The head of the group, the Egyptian Mohammed Atta, spoke 
in 2000 or 2001 to Prof. Brigitte G. of the University of Goettingen 
and offered ``Afghan art with the intention of arranging its 
exchange.'' ``He wanted to know, where antiquities could be marketed,'' 
the scholar remembered. Thereby according to the BKA, Atta had as a 
possible reason also stated that he needed the money in order to 
finance the purchase of an airplane. The contact with Goettingen was 
provided by the Technical University of Hamburg, where he was then 
studying. Although the professor referred him to Sotheby's auction 
house, no sale occurred. At the beginning of 2000 Atta returned to 
Germany from an Al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan in order to 
prepare for the attack against the USA.''
    Here is the original German version:
    ``KUNST ALS TERRORFINANZIERUNG?
    Die Hamburger Todespiloten haben nach neuen Erkenntnissen des 
Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) moglicherweise versucht, die Anschlage vom 11. 
September 2001 durch illegalen Kunsthandel zu finanzieren. Der Kopf der 
Gruppe, der Agypter Mohammed Atta, sprach 2000 oder 2001 die Gottinger 
Professorin Brigitte G. an und offerierte ``afghanische Kunst mit dem 
Ziel der Weitervermittlung''. ``Er wollte wissen, wo man Antiquitaeten 
vermarkten kann'', erinnert sich die Wissenschaftlerin. Dabei habe 
Atta, so das BKA, am Rande als Begrundung moglicherweise auch 
geaussert, er brauche das Geld, um den Ankauf eines Flugzeugs zu 
finanzieren. Der Kontakt nach Gottingen war uber die Technische 
Universitat Harburg [sic] vermittelt wordern, an der Atta damals 
studierte. Weil die Professorin ihn auf das Auktionshaus Sotheby's 
verwies, kam kein Geschft zustande. Atta war Anfang 2000 aus den Qaida-
Ausbildungslagern in Afghanistan zuruck nach Deutschland gekommen, um 
die Anschlage auf die USA vorzubereiten.''

                                 

                                Archaeological Institute of America
                                                Long Island Society
                                                 Melville, NY 11747
                                                    August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    I am writing to ask you to strongly support the HR915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. This act will give 
the President the authority to help stem the tide of illegal 
antiquities that are being drained from Afghanistan.
    Afghanistan has many archaeological sites that were once thriving 
cities on the great Silk Road that linked China and India to the 
western world. These sites and the artifacts found in them constitute 
an important part of our world heritage. As tourists, we have 
personally traveled portions of the Silk Road and would be appalled if 
any of this heritage is lost. As members of the Archaeological 
Institute of America, we are particularly aware of and sensitive to 
this issue. We know your support will help advance our understanding of 
world civilization.
                                                         Naomi Taub
                                              Education Chairperson

                                                        Jesse Taub,
                                                             Member

                                 

                                Archaeological Institute of America
                                                  Milwaukee Society
                                                Milwaukee, WI 53202
                                                    August 25, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                  Katherine Murrell
                              Public Relations/Outreach Coordinator

                                 

                                    Archaeological Legacy Institute
                                               Eugene, Oregon 97405
                                                    August 22, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am the Executive Director of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to 
the sharing of information and perspectives relating to the human 
cultural heritage worldwide. But before we can share this heritage, we 
must first protect it.
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely yours,
                                   Richard M. Pettigrew, Ph.D., RPA
                                                 Executive Director

                                 
                      Association of Dedicated Byzantine Collectors
                                   Framingham, Massachusetts 017042
                                                     September 2005
Dear Sirs:

    I am writing to oppose efforts to restrict the importation of coins 
from Afghanistan. Coins from this area are numerous and there is 
abundance for local and international research. Restricting their 
importation would result in large quantities of coins that would become 
unavailable for collectors and dealers from all over the world. This 
category of researcher adds significantly to the knowledge of the 
countries they study and we all profit from this added information.
    Please ensure that American numismatists will be able to collect 
and study coins from Afghanistan. Coins are a valuable addition to the 
study of history and no country exists in a vacuum. We learn economics, 
politics, gender issues as well as the straight history. This 
information enriches us all, and gives us an understanding of each 
other and each other's cultures. In a time when we are all struggling 
to find ``place'' in the world, this is particularly important.
            Sincerely,
                                              Prudence Morgan Fitts
                                                          President

                                 

            Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts
                                           New York, New York 10024
                                                    August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am an archaeologist and professor of ancient art at the Bard 
Graduate Center in New York City. I have worked for more than 25 years 
restoring the ancient wooden furniture excavated at the site of Gordion 
in Turkey, which belonged to the famous Phrygian King Midas and his 
family. I have twice received grants from the National Endowment for 
the Humanities for this project, which has involved an international 
team of archaeologists and conservators. Support for this important 
work by NEH and the United States government clearly indicates to me 
that our elected officials have a serious and continuing interest in 
the cultural heritage of the Middle East.
    In this regard, I am writing to you to urge your support for 
including H.R. 915, Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of 
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain 
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of 
Afghanistan''), in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants 
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions to 
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other 
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from Afghan 
cultural institutions and other locations, particularly archaeological 
sites in Afghanistan.
    Immediate enactment of this legislation is extremely important, 
since the plundering of Afghan archaeological sites is taking place on 
a large scale right now. Afghanistan has played a crucial role in the 
world's historical and cultural development, and the looting of Afghan 
sites is seriously compromising the country's cultural heritage. When 
the archaeological record is destroyed, all the world's people loose an 
important part of their collective cultural heritage. This was 
demonstrated by the widespread outrage that resulted from the recent 
destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan.
    Archaeological sites are plundered for antiquities that are traded 
largely through markets in Western Europe, many ultimately finding 
their way to the United States. We must therefore take responsibility 
for the problem and do what we can to stop it. It is crucial that the 
President be given the authority to prevent the import into the United 
States of looted cultural materials from Afghanistan. This will reduce 
the incentive for the looting and destruction of archaeological sites 
and help us to fulfill our obligations to the Afghan people to protect 
the precious remains of their ancient culture.
    Sincerely,
                                                  Elizabeth Simpson
                                                          Professor

                                 

                                            University of Tennessee
                                            Frank H. McClung Museum
                                         Knoxville, Tennessee 27917
                                                    August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. 
    House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    My name is Bobby R. Braly and I am a doctoral student at the 
University of Tennessee in the department of Anthropology. With the 
current conditions overseas, I am writing to urge your support for 
including H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of 
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain 
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of 
Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants 
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions to 
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other 
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from Afghan 
cultural institutions and other locations, particularly archaeological 
sites in Afghanistan. This legislation is necessary because 
archaeological sites are now being looted on a large scale in 
Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has played an important role 
in the world's historical and cultural development. The looting of 
sites destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific 
information that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation 
of sites. When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer forint. 
Mr. Congressman I spent three months last summer excavating in Jordan 
and would like to further emphasize the importance of antiquities from 
this region. Although now an economically deprived area, the Middle 
East was once home to some of the greatest civilizations of early 
history. The corresponding artifacts are inherently important and must 
be preserved. You are certainly aware that cultural resources are non-
renewable resources as that is why this letter has been sent with great 
fear for loss and/or destruction to archaeological or ethnological 
materials of Afghanistan
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can 
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. 
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the 
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby 
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. 
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill 
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our 
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage
            Thank you,
                                        Bobby R. Braly M.A., R.P.A.

                                 

                                      Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
                                                    August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan.
    The heritage of Afghanistan has played an important role in the 
world's historical and cultural development. The looting of sites 
destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific information 
that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation of sites. 
When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer for it. The looting 
of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have been significant 
problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United States has undertaken 
a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern for preservation of 
the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                     Kelly M. Britt
                                                Columbia University

                                 

   Statement of Eric J. McFadden, Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., 
                        Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    Our firm, Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., is one of hundreds of 
small firms that deal in ancient coins. As members of the trade in 
cultural property, we take seriously our obligation to preserve and 
protect the objects in which we deal, and we deplore the destruction or 
theft of all objects of archaeological interest and the disruption of 
archaeological sites. We also oppose any import restriction which would 
apply to coins, for the reasons which follow, and we urge either that 
H.R. 915 be defeated or that it be amended to provide a specific 
exemption for coins.
Introduction
    Ancient coins of the sort struck within the confines of present day 
Afghanistan are extremely common, with millions of examples extant. 
They have been avidly collected for hundreds of years and today are 
dispersed among collections throughout the world. There is normally no 
way to distinguish coins which have long resided in collections from 
coins which have been recently excavated, and so a restriction on all 
these coins would inevitably be an unreasonable restriction on vast 
numbers of coins which have been in collections for decades or 
centuries. American museums, dealers, and private collectors have all 
played a major role in preserving and studying ancient coins, and 
without their continuing efforts research and preservation of these 
small tokens from the past would suffer greatly.
    Furthermore, restrictions on the importation of ancient coins would 
not provide any significant protection to archaeological sites because 
few ancient coins are actually found in archaeological strata. The 
coins in exceptional condition which are valued by collectors are 
almost always found in savings or emergency hoards deposited outside 
any archaeological stratum. As a result, these ``hoard coins'' are not 
of use for dating any related archaeological context.
    Among the many arguments why it is fair and reasonable to permit 
Americans to import, collect, and study ancient coins, we would like to 
focus here--from our perspective as a dealer in ancient coins--on why 
any restriction would be unworkable from a practical standpoint.
1. Ancient Coins Exist in Enormous Quantities
    Coins are perhaps the commonest relics of antiquity. Millions and 
millions of ancient coins have been found. One can understand the 
desire of a country to prevent the loss of unique items of cultural 
significance, but coins do not fall into this category. The vast 
majority of coins are common items, existing in a great many similar or 
nearly identical examples. Due to the numbers involved, if coins were 
brought into any regime of import restriction, the potential burdens 
would be enormous, for collectors, dealers and U.S. Customs. Our 
company alone imports well over 10,000 ancient coins per year into the 
U.S., and we are only one of more than 100 dealers who import ancient 
coins. How would we manage to produce documentation to comply with 
import restrictions, and how would U.S. Customs manage to analyze and 
process such documentation?
2. The Place of Manufacture of an Ancient Coin May Be Unknown
    Not only is the number of coins enormous, but the difficulty of 
identifying the origin of each piece may be likewise great. In dealing 
with a restriction on items of Afghani ``origin'', it may be impossible 
to determine even whether a particular coin was made in Afghanistan. 
For much of recorded history, part or all of Afghanistan has been 
within the boundaries of various great imperial powers: the Persians, 
Alexander the Great and his successors, the Parthians, the Sasanians, 
the Kushans, the Scythians, the Mongols, the Mughals, and others. These 
empires typically controlled large areas unrelated to modern borders 
and issued coins at numerous mints, the precise location of which may 
not be known. Hence it may simply be impossible to say whether a 
particular coin was made within the borders of modern day Afghanistan 
or elsewhere.
3. Even if the Place of Minting is Known, This Has Little Bearing on 
        Determining a Find Spot
    In the ancient world, coins often circulated far from their point 
of origin. Coins issued in one part of a great empire, for example, 
regularly circulated in other parts. Accordingly, even if one does know 
where a coin was minted, this is no guide as to where it may have 
ultimately come to rest. Indeed, coins were items of trade, valued for 
their metal content, and are found far outside the borders of whatever 
authority issued them. To scrutinize every coin that may possibly have 
been minted in Afghanistan, in order to determine whether it may also 
have been found in Afghanistan, would place an enormous burden on 
dealers, collectors, and customs agents. Moreover, in almost every 
case, even with the best intentions and most diligent effort, a find 
site would simply be impossible to determine.
4. Actual Provenance of Ancient Coins Is Amost Always Unavailable
    Modern collecting of ancient coins began in the Renaissance. 
Initially the province of royalty and aristocracy, collecting spread to 
the educated elite and then to the middle classes. Ancient coins have 
long been collected by Americans as tangible links to our cultural 
origins, and prominent American collectors have included John Quincy 
Adams, Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan. During the intervening 
several hundred years since the Renaissance, coins have been collected, 
have traded hands, and have moved across borders largely unhindered. 
Only occasionally has the actual find spot of a coin been recorded and 
retained with the coin to the present time. Coins are by their nature 
portable items, and it is not unusual today for a coin to change hands 
several times during a week or even a day at one of the international 
coin conventions. The field is highly international, in that dealers 
and collectors routinely travel to buy coins. Major international 
conventions are held every year in New York, Chicago, London, Paris, 
Zurich, Munich, Berlin, Verona, and many other cities. Dealers and 
collectors visit these conventions to buy and sell. A dealer from 
Norway may bring a coin to a convention in New York, sell it to a 
dealer from Spain, who then sells it to another dealer, and so on. Any 
history that may have been attached to a coin can vanish quickly. Even 
a coin that has graced important collections over the past century or 
longer may appear on the market without any record of its modern 
history. Accordingly, the provenance of a coin is normally unknown. To 
require an importer to produce such a provenance would be to require 
the impossible.
5. Import Restrictions Would Be an Unfair Hindrance to Collecting
    As suggested above, it is extremely difficult to identify coins 
which may have been exported from Afghanistan. First, one may not even 
know where a coin was originally minted. Second, even if one knows the 
mint, this is no indication of where the coin was found. Third, 
regardless of where a coin may have been found, it may have a long, 
legitimate, and indeed distinguished--but unknown--modern history.
    Any import restrictions on coins would create a considerable and 
unfair burden for U.S. collectors and dealers, as well as U.S. Customs. 
Moreover, the difficulty of determining the modern provenance of 
ancient coins would render such restrictions ineffective in actually 
identifying items to be excluded. The result, therefore, would be the 
creation of a costly and burdensome customs regime which would unfairly 
disadvantage American museums, collectors, and dealers.

                                 

                                                  Wheaton, IL 60187
                                                    August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of 
    Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am an archaeologist and have a general interest in preservation 
of Archaeological sites. I work in Peru, where the pace of destruction 
of sites is so rapid that my small excavations, often only a single 
test pit 3 x 6 ft in size, are likely to be the only work ever carried 
out before these ancient places are destroyed. I know that all sites 
cannot be preserved, but I believe it is important to try and same some 
of them.
    For this reason, I am writing to urge your support for including 
H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act 
(``A bill to authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
    I hope my children will one day be able to visit Afghanistan and 
see its ancient treasures in the places where they were first created. 
You can help realize this dream by protecting Afghan national 
treasures.
            Best wishes,
                                                   Winifred Creamer
                                        (Professor of Anthropology,
                                      Northern Illinois University,
                                                  Dekalb, IL 60115)

                                 

                                         Pasadena, California 91105
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am an Afghan-American woman living in the U.S. and I am writing 
to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of 
the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President 
to take certain actions to protect archaeological or ethnological 
materials of Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act 
grants authority to the President to impose emergency import 
restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of 
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally 
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations, 
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can 
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. 
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the 
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby 
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. 
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill 
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our 
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                           Soraya Delawari Dancsecs

                                              Mark Stephen Dancsecs

                                 

                                        San Diego, California 92127
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive fort heft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Qudrat Delawari

                                                   Yasmine Delawari

                                 

                                                   Bethel, CT 06801
                                                    August 29, 2005
    This letter is in regard to H.R. 915, a bill currently under 
consideration in the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means 
Committee.
    This bill, although laudable in its stated purpose of preserving 
the cultural heritage of Afghanistan, creates more problems than it 
solves. Most significantly, it turns law abiding American citizens into 
the victims of the failed enforcement of laws in other countries. Some 
of the most notable faults of this bill are:

    1.  It is excessive in scope and proposes to restrict importation 
into the United States of even minor, insignificant objects, like 
coins, simply because they are old.
    2.  The justifications presented in this bill are grossly 
inaccurate. Claims of 100% looting of the Kabul Museum have been proven 
unfounded by a special report of the National Geographic Society which 
shows that the museum's greatest treasures were always secure in 
storage and purposely not revealed by international archaeologists. 
Nevertheless, the inflammatory and false claims of loss continue to be 
presented as justification for passage of H.R. 915.
    3.  U.S. Import restrictions on antiquities, especially on coins, 
would do nothing to diminish site looting in Afghanistan and would have 
an extremely detrimental effect on the private scholarship and cultural 
interaction that these coins have fostered for several centuries.

    If import restrictions are deemed essential, please at least exempt 
coins and other minor objects from the list of considered objects. 
Coins, by their very nature as tokens of commerce, were struck in the 
millions and purposely intended to circulate as widely as possible. 
They are not cultural property or national treasures but belong to 
anyone, anywhere, who has obtained them through fair and legal 
exchange.
    I ask you not to support this bill.
                                                      Paul DiMarzio

                                 

                                                 Oxford, Ohio 45056
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it. As a student of the classics at Miami 
University, I have an immense appreciation and support the building and 
maintaining Afghanistan's cultural heritage.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the 
UnitedStates has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. 
Concern for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must 
be given equal consideration.Sites are looted of antiquities so that 
they can be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United 
States. It is crucial that the President be given this authority to 
prevent the import into the United States of looted cultural materials 
and thereby reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of 
archaeological sites. Enactment of this legislation will help the 
United States to fulfill its obligations to the Afghan people and help 
to enrich our understanding of the world's and our own cultural 
heritage.
                                                         Tara Eagle

                                 

                                               Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
                                                    August 19, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can 
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. 
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the 
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby 
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. 
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill 
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our 
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                              Dr. Suzanne L. Eckert
                                         Department of Anthropology


                                 

        Engineering and Science Students for the Reconstruction of 
                                                Afghanistan (ESSRA)
                                                  Fremont, CA 33273
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Shaw,
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                     Masood Sattari
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

       European Association of Archaeologists, University of Exeter
                                             Exeter, United Kingdom
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw

    I write to you as President of the European Association of 
Archaeologists, an organisation representing more than 1000 
professional archaeologists from all countries of Europe and several 
outside it, especially the United States. My Board has been alarmed to 
hear of the illegal excavation and export of antiquities from 
Afghanistan, and their subsequent appearance on the market in the U.S. 
and elsewhere, including western Europe.
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    Looting of archaeological sites and museums, and despoliation of 
other monuments is a problem world-wide, but this is especially so in 
countries that are facing problems of law and order, as is the case in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan has a rich heritage of sites and 
monuments, which the illegal removal of antiquities and art objects 
destroys. Objects removed from their context may be valuable on the 
market as art items but are useless in terms of scientific 
understanding. Short-term financial gain for a few destroys long-term 
knowledge for everyone else.
    The looting of sites and museums occurs so that objects can be sold 
on to markets in countries where rich art collectors live, principally 
western Europe and the United States. Poor people in the affected areas 
understandably seek immediate financial reward from objects they can 
easily recover from the ground. The only effective way to prevent such 
looting is to remove the market for such objects. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's cultural heritage.
                                          Professor Anthony Harding
                                                          President

                                 

                                                     Wabash College
                                               Louisville, KY 40205
                                                    August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I taught at Wabash College in Indiana for forty years and, during 
that time, I was involved in Greece with several archaeological 
excavations. I care deeply for artifacts and feel that they should stay 
in their country of origin. The United States should do everything in 
its power to stop illicit trade in looted antiquities.
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                    John E. Fischer
                                    Professor of Classics, Emeritus

                                 

                                                  Waltham, MA 02451
                                                    August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman,

    I am writing to urge that you do not support H.R. 915, a bill 
currently under consideration in the Trade Subcommittee of the House 
Ways and Means Committee. If import restrictions are deemed essential, 
please at least exempt coins and other minor objects from the list of 
considered objects.
    As a private collector of ancient coins, I feel such import 
restrictions are unnecessary and undesirable for several reasons:

    1)  Ancient coins are not natural treasures. They were made for the 
sole intention of enabling commerce, and for that reason often 
circulated far beyond an individual nation's borders. As noted in the 
introductory text of H.R. 915, Afghanistan was the crossroads of many 
civilizations in ancient times. It has therefore thrived on the flow of 
coins in international trade.
    2)  Ancient coins are also typically not found associated with 
important archeological sites, having been lost by chance or buried in 
isolated context by their original owner's during times of crisis. 
Therefore ancient coins rarely have contextual archeological value as 
do other objects of cultural heritage, which I fully agree need to be 
preserved and protected.
    3)  The right to private ownership is one of the most important 
rights that we Americans enjoy. However, increasingly this right is 
coming under attack. Ancient coin collecting has been a popular pursuit 
for many centuries. The imposition of import restrictions could 
severely damage the hobby of numismatics and the many small businesses 
in the United States that are based upon it.
    4)  Import restrictions assume incorrectly that it is feasible for 
Customs agents to rely on generic lists to identify coins of Afghani 
origin that require documentation. This places an unreasonable burden 
on importers of coins, which typically lack a provenance as to where 
and when they were found.
    5)  Ancient coins were struck in the uncounted millions or even 
billions and circulated across the known world in antiquity, as well as 
in recent centuries as collectables. Documentation requirements would 
place a severe burden of proof on collectors and potentially cloud the 
title of millions of historical coins that already exist in collectors' 
hands in the United States. International commerce in coins would be 
inhibited due to the fear of unjustified seizure.

    I strongly request your help so that collectors such as myself will 
continue to enjoy and learn from the hobby of collecting ancient coins. 
Please ensure that Congress takes action to see that the issues 
described above are dealt with before this legislation becomes law.
                                                 Dr. Kevin P. Foley

                                 

                                           University of California
                                    Santa Barbara, California 93106
                                                    August 23, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am an archaeologist at the University of California Santa 
Barbara. I have been working in the realm of cultural heritage 
conservation in Mesoamerican and in the Maya area, and have a great 
concern for cultural resources around the world.
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in 
theMiscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the 
President to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import 
into theUnited States of antiquities and other cultural materials that 
have been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. While 
Afghanistan is not the only area I am concerned with it is yet another 
example of the need to protect cultural heritage in situ and is 
important an example of respect for the local value and 
irreparabilityof these antiquities.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it. Conservation of the cultural 
contexts are critical, removing items as art and displacing their 
context reduces value and importance to local inhabitants and scholars 
alike.
    Looting world wide has taken on terrible proportions. 
Archaeological sites have fallen prey to western interests in art over 
the centuries.The looting of sites and theft from museums in 
Afghanistan have been significant problems for many years. As with 
Iraq, the United Stateshas undertaken a special relationship with 
Afghanistan. Concern for preservation of the cultural heritage of 
Afghanistan must be given equal consideration. We have recognized 
bilateral conventions following the UNESCO conventions on antiquities. 
This will reinforce these global positions. Afghanistan's own 
traditions are at risk and this should not be exacerbated. Sites are 
looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately to markets in 
the developed world, particularly the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                    Dr. Anabel Ford

                                 

                                           New York, New York 10025
                                                    August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Gregg Gardner

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                    German Archaeological Institute
                                                       Cairo, Egypt
                                                    August 25, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
    I am sending you this model letter to avoid any formal mistakes on 
my side. However, I would like to add that as a former associate 
professor of Egyptian Archaeology and History at the University of 
California, Los Angeles, and current associate director of the German 
Archaeological Institute Cairo, I am well aware of the serious damage 
to the world's cultural heritage caused by illicit activities on 
various levels in connection with the international antiquities trade 
and art market. We are facing the results of these illicit activities 
almost daily even in a country like Egypt where there is a well-
organized and efficient national Antiquities Organization. The current 
situation in Afghanistan does not allow such a sufficient control of 
the numerous historical and archaeological sites in that country. 
Civilized nations like the United States of America with the highest 
possible moral and ethic standards are, in my opinion, not only 
supposed to support the preservation of any cultural heritage on this 
planet, they are oblidged to do so.
                                                    Dr. Daniel Polz
                                                 Associate Director

                                 

                                    Castro Valley, California 94552
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Mostafa Ghous

                                 

                                                          HRA, Inc.
                                           Conservation Archaeology
                                            Henderson, Nevada 89014
                                                    August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    My name is Suzanne Eskenazi, and I am an archaeologist working in 
Las Vegas, Nevada. Although most of my work takes place in southern 
Nevada and southwestern Utah, I have always been interested in 
archaeology around the world. The initial spark for my interest in 
archaeology occurred in high school, when I studied the ``fertile 
crescent'' and areas around Afghanistan. I was completely enchanted by 
the ancient civilizations that lived in that region. This is why I am 
contacting you. Recently, it has come to my attention that a bill (H.R. 
915) is soon to be voted on that involves the antiquities of 
Afghanistan.
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can 
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. 
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the 
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby 
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. 
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill 
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our 
understanding of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
    Please, help support the bill that will protect stolen artifacts 
from Afghanistan. Thank you.
            Sincerely,
                                  Suzanne B. Eskenazi, M.A., R.P.A.
                                                      Archaeologist

                                 

                               Industry Council for Tangible Assets
                                             Severna Park, Maryland
                                                    August 10, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to express my concerns about a piece of legislation 
authorizing import restrictions relating to Afghan artifacts (H.R. 915) 
that appears to be ready to be folded into the Miscellaneous Trade 
Bill. ICTA is the national trade association for the rare coin/precious 
metals/currency industry.
    Congress should exempt coins from any such restrictions. If that is 
not feasible, Congress should refer the matter to the U.S. Cultural 
Property Advisory Committee for consideration or, at the very least, 
severely limit Customs' authority to seize coins without conclusive 
proof that they were illegally removed from Afghan institutions or 
archaeological sites.
    Import restrictions on coins are unnecessary because:

      Coins are not national treasures.
      Coins can only be found easily with metal detectors. 
Regulation of metal detectors is the most effective and fair way of 
dealing with looting of archaeological sites for tiny metal objects 
like coins.

    On the other hand, imposition of import restrictions could severely 
damage the hobby of numismatics and with it the study and preservation 
of historical coins in the U.S.

      Import restrictions wrongly assume that Customs can 
reasonably rely on generic lists of coins that circulated in 
Afghanistan to trigger an importer's obligation to document country of 
origin. However, such an assumption places an impossible burden on 
importers of coins. Coins typically lack a ``provenance.'' It is quite 
unusual to know where or when a specific coin may have been excavated.
      Historical coins were struck in the millions and 
circulated widely in antiquity as hard currency and in more recent 
times as collectibles. Placing the burden of proof on collectors to 
show ``provenance'' could ``cloud the title'' to hundreds of thousands, 
if not millions, of historical coins already in collections here and 
abroad. Such coins could not travel in international commerce without 
fear of unjustified detention and seizure.

    Your assistance in ensuring that Congress take action to ensure 
that the problems described above are dealt with before this 
legislation becomes law will be greatly appreciated.
    ICTA's members would appreciate hearing your position on this issue 
and would be pleased to provide any technical assistance you and the 
Committee might require to assist your deliberations.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Eloise A. Ullman
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                                Frankfort, Michigan
                                                    August 29, 2005
Dear Sirs:

    Please do not support H.R. 915, a bill currently under 
consideration in the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means 
Committee.
    Import restrictions on coins are unnecessary because. Coins are not 
national treasures. Coins were struck in the millions and circulated 
widely in antiquity as hard currency and in more recent times as 
collectables.
    On the other hand, imposition of import restrictions could severely 
damage the hobby of numismatics, and with it the study and preservation 
of historical coins in the U.S.:
    Import restrictions wrongly assume that Customs can reasonably rely 
on generic lists of coins that circulated in Afghanistan to trigger an 
importer's obligation to document country of origin. However, many of 
the coin types that circulated in Afghanistan circulated throughout the 
ancient world. Furthermore, most ancient coins are discovered as 
individual surface finds and typically lack provenance. Allowing 
Customs to demand source documentation would place an impossible burden 
on importers of coins.
    Placing the burden of proof on collectors to show provenance could 
cloud the title to millions of historical coins already in collections 
here and abroad. Such coins could not travel in international commerce 
without fear of unjustified detention and seizure.
    Your assistance in ensuring that Congress takes action to ensure 
that the problems described above are dealt with before this 
legislation becomes law will be greatly appreciated.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Kevin W. Ingleston

                                 

 Statement of Peter K. Tompa, International Association of Professional
  Numismatists, Professional Numismatists Guild, and the Ancient Coin
                           Collectors Guild*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *The International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) 
is a nonprofit organization of the leading international numismatic 
firms founded in 1951. The objects of IAPN are the development of a 
healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the 
highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice. The IAPN 
has 113 member firms in 21 countries, including 31 in the United 
States. More about the IAPN may be found on the internet at http://
www.iapn-coins.org.
    The Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) is a nonprofit 
organization founded in 1955. The PNG's motto, ``Knowledge, Integrity, 
and Responsibility'' continues to reflect its aims, and is expressed in 
the strict requirements for election to membership to the PNG. The PNG 
has over 300 members across the United States and abroad. More about 
the PNG may be found on the internet at http://pngdealers.com.
    The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) is a nonprofit 
organization founded in response to efforts to restrict the public's 
right to collect, preserve and study ancient coins. The purposes of the 
ACCG are to promote and nurture the free and independent collecting of 
coins from antiquity through education, political action and consumer 
protection. The ACCG currently has approximately 450 members and 14 
affiliated numismatic clubs. More about the ACCG can be found on the 
internet at http://accg.us/.
    Peter K. Tompa is a partner at Dillingham & Murphy, LLP. Peter K. 
Tompa has collected and studied ancient coins for over 25 years. He 
also has written extensively on the potential impact of cultural 
patrimony laws on coin collecting. Most recently, he is a contributor 
to a chapter on numismatics in Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, 
Cultural Property, and the Law (K. Fitz Gibbon ed. Rutgers 2005). He is 
a registered lobbyist for IAPN and PNG who he is representing in this 
matter for a fee as well as a member of the ACCG Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The International Association of Professional Numismatists 
(``IAPN''), the Professional Numismatists Guild (``PNG'')and the 
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (``ACCG'') respectfully submit this 
statement in support of common sense measures to protect Afghanistan's 
cultural heritage and against the anti-small business and anti-coin 
collector remedy of ``emergency import restrictions'' authorized under 
the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. By 
their very nature, any import restrictions on coins will not just 
impact trade between the U.S. and Afghanistan. Rather, such 
restrictions could greatly hamper--and thus endanger--all legitimate 
trade in ancient and early modern historical coins that remotely 
``look'' like they may have once circulated in Afghanistan. Given the 
huge potential for damage to the entire international numismatic 
community, any such decision to impose import restrictions pursuant to 
the Act on coins must not be made lightly.
    Afghanistan has suffered greatly from tyranny and war, but has 
there really been a case made that ``emergency import restrictions'' on 
antiquities must be imposed, and if so, will any such prescription make 
the situation better or worse in Afghanistan, and at what cost to the 
small businesses, collectors and academics interested in coins that 
make up the American numismatic community?
    There is a legitimate question why such legislation is really 
necessary. As IAPN and PNG have previously reported, one of the major 
predicates for the legislation--Finding 16 stating that 100% of the 
objects in the Afghan National Museum were ``stolen'' and vandalized--
is simply untrue.\1\ Moreover, it is unclear why Congress is yet again 
being drawn into the philosophical morass associated with the Cultural 
Property Debate \2\ when Afghanistan itself is fully capable of taking 
the steps necessary to request imposition of import restrictions 
utilizing normal diplomatic channels.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Letter from Peter K. Tompa to The Hon. Phil English, dated 
March 9, 2005 (copied to the entire House Ways and Means Committee 
Membership) (noting that these reports were already being questioned 
before H.R. 915 was introduced). As set forth in detail in this and in 
the ``ACCG, IAPN and PNG Statement of Facts and Arguments Regarding 
Afghanistan, Coins and H.R. 4641, appended to letter of Arthur L. 
Friedberg, President of IAPN, to Congressman Phil English, dated July 
9, 2004, it is Afghan war lords--some of whom are evidently associated 
with the present Afghan Government--that were responsible for 
destroying the Afghan National Museum and allegedly selling off some as 
yet undetermined amount of its contents. Moreover, the same war lords 
(or tribal leaders) are said to largely control the trade in 
antiquities being excavated in the countryside.
    \2\ What largely was an academic debate over cultural property 
issues between academic archaeologists on one hand and high-end 
antiquities collectors and museum professionals on the other, has now 
spilled over into public policy, impacting a much larger group of 
Americans--like the estimated 50,000 Americans who collect ancient 
coins as well as the small businesses of the numismatic trade. In any 
event, largely influenced by similarly overblown reports of the looting 
of the Iraq National Museum, Congress passed legislation authorizing 
similar ``emergency import restrictions'' on Iraqi cultural goods last 
year.
    \3\ Afghanistan has had a functioning government for some years. 
That government could sign and ratify the UNESCO Treaty which would 
entitle it to make a request for import restrictions under the 
procedures contemplated in the Convention on Cultural Property 
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2601-2613.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill also touches upon larger political issues, sending the 
``wrong message'' to the people we need to really need to influence--
the common citizens of Afghanistan (as opposed to sundry academic 
archaeologists and cultural property bureaucrats). In particular, the 
proposed legislation is ``anti-democratic'' at a time the United States 
is trying to foster democracy and freedom in countries like 
Afghanistan. Coin collectors and dealers support efforts narrowly 
tailored to protect archaeological sites and public and private 
collections in third countries. However, the assumption behind the 
present legislation is that the U.S. should encourage Afghanistan to 
establish the broadest possible controls on any item that it deems 
``old.'' Such a rule is wholly inappropriate for budding democracy and, 
indeed, harkens back to the dark days of Afghanistan's previous 
Communist and Taliban regimes.
    In any event, Congress should not take the precipitous step of 
authorizing ``emergency import restrictions''--particularly ones 
including coins--without granting the U.S. numismatic community a full 
opportunity to be heard at Congressional hearings or before the U.S. 
Cultural Property Advisory Committee (``CPAC''), the body normally 
charged with advising the President on such matters. In the absence of 
being provided such an opportunity, IAPN, PNG and ACCG respectfully 
request that the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade consider 
the following facts and suggestions before incorporating the Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act into the 
Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    A. Congress Should Be Supportive of Private Efforts to Preserve, 
Study and Display Ancient Coins--Collecting Fosters Appreciation of 
Afghan Culture and There Are Far Too Many Ancient Coins Extant to Be 
Sole Preserve of Sundry Archaeologists and Cultural Property 
Bureaucrats.

      Numismatists Care About Coins; Archaeologists Only Care 
About ``Context.'' Numismatics, the study of coins, began in the 
Renaissance. Numismatics predates archaeology by several centuries. 
Unlike archaeologists, numismatists treat coins as far more than a 
means to the limited end of dating archaeological sites.\4\ Instead, 
numismatists have interpreted coins as part of a larger political, 
military and economic context of the society which issued them. Indeed, 
much of what we know about the Greek kingdoms of ancient Afghanistan 
derives from the study of their coins. Moreover, unlike archaeologists, 
numismatists also have accepted the obligation to preserve, popularize 
and display their coins. The obsession of many archaeologists solely 
with the context in which an object is found has all too often meant 
that common artifacts like coins are either sacrificed in the process 
of dating archaeological stratum or left to deteriorate in poor storage 
conditions once they serve that limited purpose.\5\ If anything, 
archaeologists are far more detrimental to coins than coin collectors 
are to preservation of the archaeological record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Archaeologists frequently see coins as little more than just 
one tool to date archaeological sites, and treat them accordingly. See 
e.g., John Casey, Understanding Ancient Coins: An Introduction for 
Archaeologists and Historians 7 (B.T. Batsford 1986) (``An 
archaeologist was heard to remark that `Coins are only well dated 
pieces of metal.' He was of course wrong: coins are not usually well 
dated nor are they necessarily of metal. But these small technical 
points aside, the drift of the comment well reflects the place coin 
studies have occupied in the archaeological world. Coins are perceived 
as dating evidence, as art objects and as unique species of evidence 
that is best left to the numismatist and confined to the museum strong 
room at the earliest possible moment. It is the purpose of this short 
book to bring to the attention of archaeologists and historians 
something of the full potential of coin evidence.'').
    \5\ See Frank L. Holt, Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic 
Bactria 109 (University of California Press 1999) (``Even some 
advocates of the `New Archaeology,' which treats every shred of 
evidence (even stray seeds and splinters) with utmost care, seem all 
too willing to sacrifice bronze coins. At Kourion, for example, the 
excavation director speaks of a `power struggle' over the handling of 
stray coins: `I needed the coins cleaned as soon as possible for 
purposes of dating and identification; but the conservators, as is 
their wont, lobbied for the safest and slowest methods. The reader will 
perhaps not be surprised to learn that the dig director won out, 
particularly since the coins were hardly art treasures, and were in 
very bad shape.' Bronze coins have long been valued as chronological 
indicators and little more; old habits die hard.''); Peter K. Tompa 
(unattributed author), ``Mary Washington College Presents Symposium,'' 
American Numismatic Society Magazine 8, 10 (Spring 2002) (noting that 
the common view that coins are only valuable as evidence for dating 
archaeological strata and not as objects in themselves probably helps 
explain why there are so few site publications, why find spots are not 
always recorded, and why smaller coins are not even recovered.).

      Ancient Coins as a Class are Extremely Common. Coins 
reached Afghanistan in the 5th C. BC when it was a province of the 
Achaemenid Empire of Iran. (Primary Source: J. Cribb, B. Cook and I. 
Carradice, The Coin Atlas 163-167 (MacDonald & Co. 1990)). Early issues 
of the Greek and Persian cities of the Eastern Mediterranean circulated 
based on their value as precious metal (bullion). Some of the first 
coins that circulated in the area included Athenian Tetradrachms. These 
large silver coins, weighing approximately 17 grams, bear a depiction 
of the Goddess Athena on the obverse, and her familiar, the Owl, on the 
reverse. Persian governors (satraps) struck copies of these ``Owls'' 
before Alexander conquered the area in 329 BC. Alexander's successors 
struck coins in Bactria (Northern Afghanistan). Many issues are notable 
for their fine portraiture. Since that time, coins were struck in what 
is now Afghanistan by the Mauryan Empire, the Kushan Empire, the White 
Huns, the Turks, the Mongols, and the Savids. Millions of such coins 
circulated throughout Central Asia, Pakistan and parts of India. In 
addition, ``foreign'' coins, like those issued by the Sassanian 
Persians and Romans, also circulated in the area by the thousands upon 
thousands. In this regard, it is important to note ancient mintages 
could be quite large. For example, ``Francois de Callatay [a Belgian 
scholar] has calculated that 28,000,000 Alexander [the Great] drachms 
were produced in Asia Minor down to 300 B.C.E.; Martin Price [a British 
scholar] more than doubled that estimate for this single denomination 
in one region of the empire.'' (Frank Holt, Alexander the Great and the 
Mystery of the Elephant Medallions 140 (University of California Press 
2003).) Indeed, historical coins are so numerous with millions of 
examples extant that stewardship of the world's numismatic heritage 
requires interested members of the public to collect, study, conserve 
record and publish historical coins both individually and collectively 
through membership in and support of organizations such as the American 
Numismatic Association and the American Numismatic Society.
      Coins are not National Treasures. Ancient coins struck in 
Afghanistan have been widely collected and traded by Westerners since 
at least the early 1800's.\6\ Even in recent times, the Afghan 
government did not treat coins as national treasures. In the pre-
Communist era (before1978), ancient coins were sold openly in antiques 
shops on Chicken Street and Pakistani Embassy Street in Kabul. Traders 
would also sell thousands of coins in parks where they would be 
displayed on rugs. Tribal leaders, militia commanders and local people 
who continue to sell coins presumably believe that they are only 
following that tradition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ English gentlemen who served with the British colonial 
administration in India formed many notable collections. As early as 
1832, British adventurer Charles Masson began collecting coins in 
Afghanistan. (Elizabeth Errington, Discovering Ancient Afghanistan, The 
Masson Collection, Minerva Vol. 13 No. 6 at 53 (Nov./Dec. 2002). Masson 
himself estimated that he collected some 60,000 coins during his 
travels in the country from 1833-1838. (Id.) English collector/scholars 
also included Dr. Richard Bertram Whitehead (1879-1967). His Notes on 
Indo-Greek Numismatics (reprinted in Whitehead, Indo-Greek Numismatics 
(Argonaut 1969)), gives some sense of the collector spirit of the time, 
``I record some general observations, based on my sixteen years' 
experience as an active collector in the Punjab, on the position and 
extent of the dominions of the Bactrian Greeks in India under Heliocles 
and his successors, as deduced more especially from the find spots, 
distribution, and monograms of their coins.'' (Id. at 294.) Americans 
also have long enjoyed collecting, studying and preserving coin types 
that circulated in the area of modern Afghanistan. A number of 
prominent American collectors bought ancient coins in Afghanistan 
during its heyday as a tourist destination in the 1960's and early 
1970's. Of course, coins of the type that circulated in Afghanistan 
have also been available for purchase in the U.S. for many decades. For 
example, a noted collection formed primarily in the 1940's and 1950's 
by Archaeological Institute of America Trustee and American Numismatic 
Society Council Member Arthur Dewing contained examples of coins issued 
by Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Scythian rulers. (Leo Mildenberg and Silvia 
Hurter, The Arthur S. Dewing Collection Nos. 2716-2731 (ANS 1985).)

    B. Congress Should Consider the Practical Problems Associated with 
the Proposed Legislation--Particularly to the Small Business of the 
Numismatic Trade--Before Making a Grand But Inherently Flawed Statement 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Support of Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage.

      The Import Restrictions Authorized in H.R. 915 are Anti-
Small Business. The House recently passed H. Res. 22 calling for a 
``Small Business Bill of Rights,'' but H.R. 915 is profoundly troubling 
on a practical, business related level to the small businesses that 
comprise the numismatic trade. In particular, the suggested remedy of 
import restrictions is grossly overbroad and can only lead to an import 
ban on any coin type deemed to have possibly come from Afghanistan. In 
fact, import restrictions presuppose that a coin was in Afghanistan in 
the first place when in all likelihood the truth is the opposite. The 
bill supposedly aims to fight looting of archaeological sites in 
Afghanistan, but it does so by authorizing U.S. Customs to seize coins 
entering the United States from third countries solely because they 
``look'' similar to like kind items on a Department of State/U.S. 
Customs web site. In order to avoid detention and seizure, any small 
business importing coins will be required to certify: (1) that the coin 
in question (a) left Afghanistan before imposition of import 
restrictions; or (b) left Afghanistan accompanied by an export 
certificate. This burden is simply an impossible one for the small 
businesses of the numismatic trade to meet. Coins that circulated in 
Afghanistan cannot be distinguished from those that circulated in 
Northern India, Pakistan, Central Asia or elsewhere. Now placing the 
burden of proof on collectors, coin dealers, and museums to show 
``provenance'' could, therefore, ``cloud the title'' to hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions, of historical coins already in collections 
here and abroad. Such coins could not travel in international commerce 
without fear of unjustified detention and seizure.
      The Rationale for H.R. 915 Rests on a Falsehood. One of 
the major predicates for the bill's ``emergency import restrictions'' 
is the claim at Finding 16 that, ``100 percent of the objects [from the 
Kabul National Museum] were stolen and vandalized.'' However, it has 
long been reported that most of the important items thought to be 
missing from the Afghan National Museum (including coins) have in fact 
been found in excellent condition. (See National Geographic News: 
Afghan Gold Treasures Photo Gallery (http://
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/photogalleries/
afghan_treasure/photo3.html)(picture of Greco-Bactrian coins, 
captioned, ``These ten silver Greco-Bactrian coins are part of the 
nearly 2,000 silver and gold coins recovered in a National Geographic 
project. The coins are among the many Afghan museum artifacts saved 
from 25 years of war and political upheaval.'')). It is indeed 
unfortunate that such erroneous information continues to be used as the 
predicate for passage of this legislation.
      The Proposed Legislation Will Do Nothing to Discourage 
Looting. Restrictions on the import of coins into the United States 
will not impact any looting in Afghanistan because they will not 
diminish the power of war lords (many of whom are also members of the 
Afghan Government) who control the trade or the destitution of farmers, 
who sell artifacts they find in order to help them survive in one of 
the poorest countries on earth. Nor will import restrictions enforced 
by U.S. Customs impact the market in Pakistan where Afghan coins are 
sold freely with those found locally. Even if restrictions make coins 
worthless as collectibles (as the proponents of restrictions hope) it 
will only encourage destitute Afghans to melt them down as bullion to 
recover their metallic value.\7\ No one--not even archaeologists or 
cultural property bureaucrats-- would be served by such a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ In that part of the world, old coins are likely to be melted 
for their bullion value if they are not saved by numismatists. See 
e.g., Osmund Bopearachchi & Klaus Grigo, ``Thundering Zeus Revisited,'' 
169 Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 22 (Autumn 2001) (noting 
that numismatists were only able to save approximately 70 coins from a 
hoard of Bactrian gold coins found in India after a jeweler had melted 
some of the coins.).

    C. Congress Should Focus on Common Sense Measures that Foster 
Appreciation of Afghanistan's Culture Both Here and in Afghanistan 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Itself.

      The Subcommittee Should Limit Import Restrictions to 
Items of Undeniable Cultural Significance. Congress should reject the 
underlying assumptions behind overbroad import restrictions that 
anything ``old'' automatically should be considered property of a 
foreign state, that any artifact without a demonstrable ``provenance'' 
(``chain of custody'') must be considered ``stolen,'' and that only a 
limited number of archaeologists or foreign museum specialists should 
be allowed to study and preserve remnants of the past. Instead, 
Congress should only authorize import restrictions on items of 
undeniable cultural significance and not common items that exist in 
millions of examples like coins.
      The Subcommittee Should Investigate Other Less Onerous 
Measures. Congress should help Afghan officials explore more effective, 
and far less onerous means to protect the archaeological record, 
including better policing of archaeological sites, public education 
programs, reasonable regulation of the sale and use of metal detectors, 
and passage of fair laws that encourage members of the public in source 
countries to report their finds with the prospect of a monetary reward.
        Congress Should Help Afghanistan Set Up a Web Site to 
Publicize Such Items That Remain Lost From the Afghan National Museum. 
It is our understanding that most, if not all, of the most important 
artifacts from the Afghan National Museum survived the Afghan Civil War 
and Taliban rule despite prior, highly exaggerated reports to the 
contrary. In any event, the best way to track down any items that may 
remain missing from the Afghan National Museum is to construct a 
comprehensive web site of these items that can be publicized to members 
of the legitimate international antiquities trade. Such a web site 
would encourage voluntary returns of any items still missing from the 
Afghan National Museum without resort to draconian legislation based on 
the erroneous assumption that objects without a known provenance must 
be ``stolen.''
        Congress Should Encourage Afghan Authorities to Adopt a 
Law Like the United Kingdom's Treasure Act. Protecting sites is more 
complex, but the best antidote to looting is the institution of a fair 
system akin to the British Treasure Act. This is a reporting system 
that awards finder fair value for items the state wants to retain for 
its national collections. Other items are returned to the finder after 
being recorded. Costs of such a system should be minimal, particularly 
in places like Afghanistan where impoverished farmers will most likely 
accept small amounts of money in return for such artifacts as they 
find. In the United Kingdom, this law has been judged a success because 
it recognizes that archaeologists and the state are not the only 
parties with legitimate interests.\8\ In particular, the Treasure Act 
provides state museums a right of first refusal, finders with the 
prospect of a reward based on fair market value, dealers and collectors 
with the prospect of access to coins with a demonstrable provenance, 
and archaeologists with reports on finds that may lead to the discovery 
of otherwise unknown archaeological sites. Efforts should be made to at 
least explore whether a version of this law may work in Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ For a critique of the elitism inherent in the present system of 
international cultural property laws, see John Henry Merryman, Cultural 
Property Internationalism 12 International J. of Cul. Prop.11 (2005). 
For a description of the success of the Treasure Act, see e.g., Peter 
A. Clayton, ``Treasure: Finding our Past,'' Vol. 15 No. 1 Minerva 8 
(2004) (discussing success of Treasure Act); ``Arts Minister Estelle 
Morris Welcomes Further Rise in Number of Treasure Finds and Says 
Figure Likely to Reach 500 in 2004,'' Department for Culture, Media and 
Sport Press Notices 142/04 (October 26, 2004) (``We've all dreamed of 
uncovering hidden history, from ancient deeds in our attics to Saxon 
gold in our gardens. Between them, the Treasure Report and the Portable 
Antiquities Scheme report, which covers 47,000 items found by the 
public last year, provide a comprehensive record of the public's most 
recent discoveries-from the everyday to the truly extraordinary.''). 
For an eloquent plea to Italy to adopt a law akin to the Treasure Act 
and the complimentary ``Portable Antiquities Scheme,'' see Anna Somers 
Cocks, ``Make the Citizen Your Ally if You Want to Save the Nation's 
Past,'' The Art Newspaper 26 (Feb. 2005) (``It is many years since 
archaeology has been principally a treasure hunt. Now that the real 
treasure is information, and the finds, once recorded could 
theoretically anywhere in the world without damaging the patrimony of 
their find country and our global heritage.''). While it might be 
suggested that Afghanistan could ill-afford such a system, the costs in 
the ``First World'' United Kingdom have been minimal (₤ 1.3 
million in 2003 according to Anna Somers Cocks), and must be contrasted 
with very considerable costs in forcing compliance in addition to the 
more difficult to calculate ``psychic'' costs associated with the ill-
will tough antiquities legislation may generate both in Afghanistan and 
here in the United States.

        At a Minimum, the Following Modifications Should be 
Made to the Legislation. The concerns of coin collectors and coin 
dealers can only be fully addressed with a ``coin exemption'' that 
recognizes that there are simply too many historical coins circulating 
world wide to be considered items of ``cultural significance'' for 
which import restrictions are appropriate.\9\ Failing that IAPN, PNG 
and ACCG suggest the following modifications to H.R. 915:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ After a meeting with Congressmen English and Leach in July 
2003, the numismatic community received the commitment of both 
Congressmen to press for a ``coin exemption'' in the bill they were 
sponsoring on Iraqi antiquities. How this commitment was forgotten and 
replaced with a bill that specifically authorizes import restrictions 
on coins has raised considerable concern and disappointment within the 
numismatic community. See e.g., B. Deisher, ``Lawmaker Turns Blind Eye 
to Truth,'' Coin World 10 (March 21, 2005).

        Factual findings 15-17 should be deleted in favor of a 
more accurate statement concerning the justification for the proposed 
legislation.
        Meaningful review of any proposed import restrictions 
by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee should be preserved.
        Any specific reference that can be taken as a ``green 
light'' to impose import restrictions on coins should be deleted.
        The definition of ``archaeological or ethnological 
material of Afghanistan'' must be modified to make clear that import 
restrictions can only be imposed on archaeological objects of clear 
``cultural significance'' that are at least 250 years old, and objects 
of ethnological interest that are considered ``important to the 
cultural heritage of a people because of their distinctive 
characteristics, comparative rarity, or contribution to the knowledge 
of the origins, development, or history of that people.''
        U.S. Customs should be directed to only to enforce 
restrictions on items where there is a ``reasonable suspicion'' that an 
item was illegally removed from Afghanistan and such reasonable 
suspicion cannot solely rest on the fact that an item being imported 
bears a resemblance to a type of item known to have come from 
Afghanistan.

                                 

                                                 Oxford, Ohio 45056
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs Bill. Afghanistan benefits from being know as the 
crossroads of civilizations. This is where Alexander the Great defeated 
Darius III, and marched his army through the Kunar Valley to reach 
India, and houses the Silk Road which brought Roman glass and Chinese 
lacquer. I could keep making a longer list of the events that have 
happened in this country. To have such a history is a great achievement 
to a country. Would you be happy if people smuggled American artifacts 
to Europe and displayed them there or sold them for pocket change? I 
don't think so; you would want these artifacts and objects to e safe in 
a museum and to educate our population. Afghanistan is no different. 
They wish to have their works of art exhibited for their people as 
well. Afghanistan has suffered enough with the burning of their museums 
stealing of artifacts, we should not let looters think what they are 
doing is right. With the passing of this legislation we will have 
started a trend to stop the pillaging of country's histories.
    Please help us save the past for our future, thank you.
            Yours sincerely,
                                                    Christine Jauch

                                 

                                                     Vassar College
                                       Poughkeepsie, New York 12604
                                                    August 23, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am an archaeologist and professor, and one of my most important 
tasks is teaching young people the importance of ethical behavior in 
all that they do, both in their daily lives and in their archaeological 
endeavors.
    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
    Please support this legislation and show our students that not only 
they, but also their government, can act in ethically responsible ways.
            Sincerely,
                                              Lucille Lewis Johnson
                                          Professor of Anthropology

                                 

                                           Encino, California 91436
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Matthew Johnson

                                 

                                         Bloomington, Indiana 47405
                                                    August 23, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan

cultural institutions and other locations, particularly archaeological 
sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Sincerely,
                                                          Erin Kuns
                                                      PhD Candidate
                                                 Indiana University

                                 

              Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation
                                                  Chicago, IL 60604
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am submitting this letter on behalf of myself and the Lawyers' 
Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation \1\ in support of the 
inclusion of H.R. 915, Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of 
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain 
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of 
Afghanistan''), in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This bill grants the 
authority to the President to impose emergency import restrictions 
under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) to 
prevent the import into the United States of antiquities and other 
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from the cultural 
institutions and archaeological sites of Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is an 
association of lawyers who have joined together to promote the 
preservation and protection of cultural heritage resources in the 
United States and internationally through education and advocacy. I am 
Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law and Director of 
its Arts and Cultural Heritage Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Afghanistan was the Central Asian crossroads and part of the Silk 
route throughout much of ancient and medieval history and thus is the 
location of sites and monuments of the Hellenistic, Gandharan, and 
Persian, as well as Islamic, cultures. Afghanistan is perhaps best 
known for the fusion of Ancient Greek and Indian cultures, which 
produced its own distinctive artistic style. Afghanistan's cultural 
repositories and archaeological sites have suffered extensively since 
the 1970s--at the hands of Soviet occupiers, the mujahedeen, the 
Taliban and general lawlessness and lack of effective civil authority. 
The Kabul museum was attacked and looted numerous times. Despite the 
routing of the Taliban in late 2001, Afghanistan's archaeological sites 
and other cultural monuments outside of the main cities remain 
vulnerable to looting and, in fact, are being looted on a considerable 
scale.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ For the history of archaeology in Afghanistan and the impact of 
war on Afghan cultural heritage over the past twenty-five years, see 
Abdul Wasey Feroozi, The Impact of War upon Afghanistan's Cultural 
Heritage, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological 
Institute of America, January 3, 2004, available at: http://
www.archaeological.org/pdfs/papers/AIA_Afghanistan_address_lowres.pdf 
(detailing with photographs the looting at such Afghan sites as Ai 
Khanum, Balkh, Tepe Zargaran, Robatak, Samangan-Haibak, and Surkh 
Kotal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Archaeological sites are composed of layers of soil, each 
containing a complex of artifacts, architectural remains, and floral 
and faunal remains. Each layer represents a specific time period in the 
history of the site and in human history. When a site is scientifically 
excavated, each layer with all its associated remains can be 
reconstructed to give a full picture of ancient life at a particular 
time. Similar time capsules are represented by burials, which often 
contain human remains and burial goods and can convey information about 
religious customs and beliefs, economic status, health, and gender 
roles. However, when a site is looted to obtain those artifacts prized 
for sale on the international art market, this archaeological context 
is forever lost, fragile remains are destroyed, and our ability to 
fully reconstruct and understand the past is permanently diminished. 
When sites are looted to obtain artifacts for sale on the international 
market, those artifacts that are not desired by the market or those 
that are incomplete are often discarded.
    In 1983, the United States Congress enacted the Convention on 
Cultural Property Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2601-13 
(CPIA), implementing our ratification of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on 
the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and 
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and recognizing that the 
international trade in often looted archaeological objects contributes 
significantly to the destruction of archaeological sites, the 
irretrievable loss of scientific, cultural, and artistic information, 
and the impoverishment of our and the world's historical record. When 
Congress enacted and President Reagan signed the CPIA into law, the 
Senate Report that accompanied the CPIA stated:
    The expanding worldwide trade in objects of archaeological and 
ethnological interest has led to wholesale depredations in some 
countries, resulting in the mutilation of ceremonial centers and 
archaeological complexes of ancient civilizations and the removal of 
stone sculptures and reliefs. . . . The destruction of such sites and 
the disappearance of the historic records evidenced by the articles 
found in them has given rise to a profound national interest in joining 
other countries to control the trafficking of such articles in 
international commerce.
Senate Report No. 97-564.
    The CPIA, in part, created a mechanism by which other nations that 
are party to the Convention can request that the United States impose 
import restrictions on designated categories of archaeological and 
ethnological materials. Such materials cannot enter the United States 
unless they have been legally exported from their country of origin or 
left the country of origin before the effective date of the import 
restrictions. The process by which the determination is made to impose 
such restrictions is lengthy and burdensome to the requesting nation. 
In addition, in order to submit a request for import restrictions, the 
requesting nation must be a party to the 1970 Convention.
    Afghanistan has not yet ratified the Convention and has therefore 
been unable to bring such a request to the United States, despite the 
significant looting of archaeological sites. The political stability 
that Afghanistan had enjoyed under a centrist monarchy was shattered in 
1973 when the monarchy was overthrown and decades of political chaos 
ensued. During this period, it was impossible for Afghanistan to 
fulfill the requirements for ratifying the Convention. Following 
establishment of President Karzai's government, Afghanistan has been 
progressing toward ratification, but this has required, among other 
time-consuming tasks, the writing of new laws. Even once Afghanistan 
ratifies the Convention, it would have to prepare a request with 
supporting documentation, which would likely require several years, 
unless H.R. 915 is enacted into law.
    This legislation will allow the President to exercise his authority 
under the CPIA to impose import restrictions on Afghan cultural 
materials that have been looted and illegally removed from Afghanistan. 
It would also eliminate the requirements that Afghanistan first ratify 
the Convention and that Afghanistan submit a request to the United 
States.
    I and the Lawyers Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation 
strongly support this legislation because it will provide a quick and 
effective means of reducing the incentive to loot archaeological sites 
and museums. In this way, the United States will be helping to fulfill 
our special responsibilities to Afghanistan and to preserve the world's 
cultural heritage. I and the Lawyers' Committee would be happy to 
provide any technical assistance you or the Committee may wish in 
enacting this legislation.
                                                 Patty Gerstenblith
                                            Professor and President

                                 
                                    The College of William and Mary
                                             Williamsburg, VA 23185
                                                    August 26, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    I feel particularly strongly about this issue as a professional 
archaeologist. I have lived outside of the United States for a number 
of years during my education and work and I know that American scholars 
are often looked to as representatives of their country both by the 
scholarly and local communities in the countries where we carry out our 
work. We are often asked questions about United States political policy 
as it pertains to preserving and maintaining the culture and history of 
our host countries. It is vital to the future of both the United States 
and the rest of world to think beyond present events to ensure the 
preservation of the extant remains of past world cultures. As an 
archaeologist who is an American I know that we need to acknowledge and 
celebrate the cultural heritage of other countries both for the general 
edification of current and future populations, and so that we may 
maintain the relationships that enable Americans to be in the forefront 
of advances in all areas of scholarship.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                       Shawna Leigh
                                       Visiting Assistant Professor

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

                                                    Gteborg, Sweden
                                                  September 1, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in

the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. As an archaeologist I am concerned 
about the destruction of archaeological sites in Afghanistan which is 
fuelled by market demand in Western countries, including the United 
States.
    I would like to point out that not only our common heritage is a 
victim of the looting and illicit trade. It also takes a toll of human 
lives. For example, in 2004 it was reported that four police officers 
were murdered when dispatched to protect an archaeological site.
    (D. van der Schriek ``Warlords loot Afghanstan's cultural heritage 
with impunity'' Eurasia Insight, 10/08/04.) The article mentions that 
local war lords fund their armies through antiquities smuggling.
    I would also like to draw to your attention to that the illicit 
antiquities trade may also have been used to fund terrorism. This 
summer it was reported that the police investigation in Germany on the 
terrorist cell in Hamburg had revealed that Muhammed Atta, allegedly 
the pilot of one of the planes which crashed into World Trade Center, 
had approached a German art historian to ask for advice on how to sell 
``valuable antiquities'' from Afghanistan. According to the art 
historian, Atta had mentioned that ``he wanted to purchase an 
aircraft''.
    It is not known, and will probably never be known, whether Atta 
actually proceeded with his plans to sell antiquities, nor is it known 
exactly how the September 11 attacks were funded, but the sheer 
possibility that it may have been funded through antiquities smuggling 
from Afghanistan, in my view, a strong argument in favor of imposing 
emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the United 
States of antiquities that have been illegally removed from Afghan.

                                                     Staffan Lunden

                                 

                                        Westfield, New Jersey 07090
                                                    August 17, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    As a professional archeologist and a concerned American citizen, I 
am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological
    materials of Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This 
Act grants authority to the President to impose emergency import 
restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of 
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally 
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations, 
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    Archaeological sites are now being looted on an alarmingly large 
scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has played an 
important role in the world's historical and cultural development. The 
looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, religious and 
scientific information that may be derived through careful and 
systematic investigation of sites. All people interested in prehistory, 
history and the development of modern civilization should be concerned 
about this issue. When the archaeological record is destroyed we are 
all affected.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration. Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can 
be sold ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. 
It is crucial that the President be given this authority to prevent the 
import into the United States of looted cultural materials and thereby 
reduce the incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. 
Enactment of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill 
its obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich global 
understanding of the world's cultural heritage.
            Very truly yours,
                                      Sydne B. Marshall, Ph.D., RPA

                                 

                                      Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132
                                                    August 30, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am a Professional Archaeologist and Assistant Professor of 
Anthropology writing to you to urge your support for including H.R. 915 
Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill 
to authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. Such legislation is of worldwide, and 
immediate, interest.
    This Act grants authority to the President to impose emergency 
import restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of 
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally 
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations, 
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development.
    This legislation is necessary due to the large-scale looting of 
archaeological sites taking place in Afghanistan. The looting of sites 
destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific information 
that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation of sites. 
When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Our 
concern for the preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan 
must be given equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the us, the United States of America, to 
fulfill our obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our 
understanding of the world's, and our own, cultural heritage.
                                              Tanya M. Peres, Ph.D.
                                                Assistant Professor

                                 

                                               Las Cruces, NM 88012
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

    I am writing to express my concerns about a piece of legislation 
authorizing import restrictions relating to Afghan artifacts (H.R. 915) 
that appears to be ready to be folded into the Miscellaneous Trade 
Bill. Congress should exempt coins from any such restrictions. If that 
is not feasible, Congress should refer the matter to the U.S. Cultural 
Property Advisory Committee for consideration or, at the very least, 
severely limit Customs' authority to seize coins without conclusive 
proof that they were illegally removed from Afghan institutions or 
archaeological sites.
    Coins are not national treasures. Historical coins were struck in 
the millions and circulated widely in antiquity as hard currency. 
Consider the flow of dollars across borders today. Ancient coins 
crossed borders in a similar way. Placing the burden of proof on 
collectors to show ``provenance'' could ``cloud the title'' to hundreds 
of thousands, if not millions, of historical coins already in 
collections here and abroad. Such coins could not travel in 
international commerce without fear of unjustified detention and 
seizure.
    Import restrictions wrongly assume that Customs can reasonably rely 
on generic lists of coins that circulated in Afghanistan to trigger an 
importer's obligation to document country of origin. However, such an 
assumption places an impossible burden on importers of coins. Coins 
typically lack a ``provenance.'' It is quite unusual to know where or 
when a specific coin may have been excavated, or whether it has passed 
through the centuries as a store of value.
    Your assistance in ensuring that Congress take action to ensure 
that the problems described above are dealt with before this 
legislation becomes law will be greatly appreciated.
                                                     Robert O. Pick

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                                       Oslo, Norway
                                                    August 18, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am a Norwegian citizen writing to you to humbly urge your support 
for including H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of 
Civilization Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain 
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of 
Afghanistan'') in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. Such legislation is 
of worldwide interest.
    This Act grants authority to the President to impose emergency 
import restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of 
antiquities and other cultural materials that have been illegally 
removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other locations, 
particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
            Yours sincerely,
                                          Josephine Munch Rasmussen

                                 

                                    Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104
                                                    August 24, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs
    bill. This Act grants authority to the President to impose 
emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the United 
States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have been 
illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan.
    This legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now 
being looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of 
Afghanistan has played an important role in the world's historical and 
cultural development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, 
cultural, religious and scientific information that is derived through 
the careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is 
destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for
    theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment of this 
legislation will help the United States to fulfill its obligations to 
the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding of the world's 
and our own cultural heritage.

                                                    Paul Ray, Ph.D.
                            Director of Archaeological Publications

                                 

                                                  Seattle, WA 98112
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
                                                      Angela Redman

                                 

                                    Saving Antiquities for Everyone
                                      Jersey City, New Jersey 07310
                                                  September 6, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0922

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This gives the President the authority to 
impose restrictions to prevent the import into the United States of 
cultural materials that have been illegally removed from Afghanistan.
    It is worth reminding ourselves that, nearly four years after the 
U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, 18,000 U.S. troops remain on the 
ground there today. America's responsibilities to the fledgling 
Afghanistan government are obvious. One of those duties is to respect 
Afghan law.
    Under Afghanistan law--the Code for the Protection of Antiquities 
in Afghanistan (1958)--every Afghan antiquity (artistic relic and 
monuments, moveable or immovable, dating prior to 1748) illegally 
excavated and smuggled from that country is considered stolen property. 
The Code for the Protection of Antiquities in Afghanistan has been 
governing law since 1958.
    The best way for the United States to voice its respect for Afghan 
law is to pass H.R. 915, urge the Senate to pass similar legislation, 
and present the final bill to the Presidential for his signature.
    The seriousness of this issue becomes clear after reviewing the 
large number of Afghan antiquities now in the U.S.--in major museums, 
at universities and in private collections--that were illegally 
excavated (looted) and smuggled from Afghanistan. Even though such 
artifacts are considered stolen property by the Afghan government, 
Americans continue to import and acquire these looted artifacts with 
impunity--despite recent court rulings [United States v. Schultz, 333 
F.2d 393 (2d Cir. 2003)] that make artifacts exported in violation of a 
source country's laws and imported to the U.S. subject to the National 
Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2314--15).
    I trust you will support passage of H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation 
of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. I thank you for giving this 
matter your time and consideration.
            Yours sincerely,
                                                           Cindy Ho

                                 

                                   Society for American Archaeology
                                               Washington, DC 20002
                                                    August 19, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    The Society for American Archaeology respectfully requests that 
H.R. 915, the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization 
Act, be included in the miscellaneous trade legislation package that 
the subcommittee will consider later this year. This legislation would 
serve a vital purpose by enabling the U.S. to assist Afghanistan in its 
struggle against those who engage in the illicit excavation and 
trafficking of its cultural heritage.
    SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in 
1934, has been dedicated to the research, interpretation, and 
protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more 
than 6,800 members, the Society represents professional archaeologists 
in colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the 
private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other 
nations around the world.
    H.R. 915 would amend the Cultural Property Implementation Act 
(CPIA) to allow the President to impose emergency import restrictions 
on antiquities and works of art illegally excavated and exported from 
Afghanistan. Current law prevents the President from doing so. Under 
the existing CPIA, nations that are suffering from looting, and that 
are signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the prevention of 
illicit trafficking in cultural property, can request that the U.S. 
impose import restrictions on categories of cultural property that are 
threatened by looters. These restrictions are designed to stanch the 
importation of illegally-procured objects into the U.S. Unfortunately, 
Afghanistan has not ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and thus 
cannot ask the U.S. for such protection. H.R. 915 would allow the 
President to impose such restrictions, upon the government of 
Afghanistan's request, even though that nation is not a signatory to 
the 1970 Convention. The restrictions would remain in effect until 
September 30, 2010, or five years after the date upon which relations 
between the U.S. and Afghan governments are established, whichever is 
earlier.
    There is no question that Afghanistan is suffering from an epidemic 
of looting of its cultural resources. Two decades of near-constant war 
have seen devastating amounts of damage inflicted on that country's 
ancient and unique cultural heritage. The Afghan people, as well as the 
world's peoples, are losing an immense and irreplaceable heritage. What 
is lost is not only the objects, as important as they are, but also 
knowledge of the past. When archaeological materials are 
unscientifically removed from their resting places, an enormous amount 
of information about the objects, the places they came from, and the 
people who lived there, is lost. Quite often the objects themselves 
disappear forever, sold on the black market or in auction houses under 
fraudulent circumstances. Unfortunately, our nation is a major market 
for such goods. That is why this legislation is so badly needed. The 
import restrictions that H.R. 915 would make possible--while no 
panacea--would make a substantial improvement in our ability to deter 
the illegal excavation and trafficking of Afghan cultural materials.
    The SAA respectfully requests the inclusion of H.R. 915 in the 
upcoming omnibus trade legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Kenneth M. Ames
                                                          President


                                 

                                                   The Field Museum
                                            Chicago, Illinois 60605
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am submitting this letter to urge your support for the inclusion 
of H.R. 915, Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization 
Act (``A bill to authorize the President to take certain actions to 
protect archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan''), in 
the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This bill grants the authority to the 
President to impose emergency import restrictions under the Convention 
on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) to prevent the import 
into the United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that 
have been illegally removed from the cultural institutions and 
archaeological sites of Afghanistan.
    Too often, public perception has held that the value of 
archaeological research is based only on the recovery of beautiful 
objects. Archaeological research, however, relies on detailed and 
extensive analysis of all of a site's contents, from the remains of 
building and house layouts to material goods to faunal and floral 
remains to details of soil composition and chemistry. When a site is 
looted, the disturbance of site context has far-reaching consequences 
for the level and quality of information that can be recovered through 
scientific methods. Looters destroy far more than they know when 
digging indiscriminately.
    I am an archaeologist specializing on the analysis of faunal 
remains, the ubiquitous animal bones that are so commonly a part of 
human living arrangements. The material that I work with is not 
desirable to the collector, but it is invaluable to an archaeologist 
interested in questions ranging across topics that include the origins 
of domestication, economic exchanges between societies, the nature of 
social status, and local environmental and subsistence conditions. 
Faunal material is also easily disturbed and scattered, or tossed 
aside, by looting.
    In the specific case of Afghanistan, the world at large, and 
Afghanistan in particular, is losing its cultural heritage, bit by bit, 
on a daily basis. Afghanistan sits on a crossroads that have made it a 
lively and dynamic location for trade in goods, ideas, beliefs, and 
technology. The ancient Silk Road crossed Afghanistan bringing into 
contact people and cultures from the Far East, the Mediterranean basin, 
and South Asia. Early Buddhist and Persian cities and states 
flourished, and their histories inform us on geopolitical currents in 
the ancient world.
    A country with a rich and varied history is rich indeed, and it is 
my belief that bills such as H.R. 915 do exert a positive influence by 
restricting demand for illegally looted artifacts, and thus also serve 
to discourage supply of these items. Given the special relationship 
that the United States has formed with the country of Afghanistan, 
imposition of import restrictions on illegally excavated antiquities is 
one way in which to help conserve a fascinating and important region's 
cultural history.

                                                     Deborah Bekken
                                                    Adjunct Curator

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                  The World Archaeological Congress
                                      Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia
                                                    August 29, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) urges you to support the 
inclusion of H.R. 915 Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of 
Civilization Act (A bill to authorize the President to take certain 
actions to protect archaeological or ethnological materials of 
Afghanistan) in the Miscellaneous Tariffs bill that is presently before 
the House of Representatives.
    The WAC strongly supports this initiative, which would provide 
legal means to prevent the importation into the United States of 
illegally removed Afghan antiquities and other cultural materials. 
Significant artifacts and works of art are currently being looted from 
archaeological sites in Afghanistan with a view to being sold 
ultimately to markets in Western Europe and the United States. With 
this
    legislation, the incentive to participate in this theft will be 
significantly minimized.
    The World Archaeological Congress is an international organization, 
which represents professional archaeologists in tertiary institutions, 
museums, government agencies, and the private sector from more than 90 
countries. It seeks to promote interest in the past in all countries, 
to encourage the development of regionally based histories and 
international academic interaction, and has a particular interest in:

      education about the past
      archaeology and indigenous peoples
      the ethics of archaeological enquiry
      the protection of sites and objects of the past
      the effect of archaeology on host communities
      the ownership, conservation and exploitation of the 
archaeological heritage
      the application of new technologies in archaeology and in 
archaeological communication
      the place of archaeology in a post-colonial world.

    In the past, the U.S. government has exercised thoughtful 
responsibility for its own national heritage, knowing that it is 
irreplaceable, and has acknowledged the protective value of appropriate 
legislation.
    The WAC believes that this proposed legislation is vital for the 
protection of the heritage of Afghanistan--a heritage that has played 
an important role in the world's historical and cultural development. 
Archaeological treasures have inherent value to cultural identity, not 
only to the Afghan people, but to the world community as well. In the 
last two decades looting in Afghanistan has been devastating to that 
country's cultural heritage. The current looting of archaeological 
sites destroys the historical, cultural, religious and scientific 
information that is derived through the careful, systematic excavation 
of sites. When this record is destroyed we are all the poorer for it.
    The United States has undertaken a special relationship with 
Afghanistan, as they have previously done with Iraq. Concern for 
preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration. It is crucial that the President be given this 
authority to prevent the import into the United States of looted 
cultural materials.
    With the enactment of this legislation the United States will take 
another crucial step towards fulfilling its obligations to the Afghan 
people and our understanding of the world's and our own cultural 
heritage will be significantly enriched.

                                                    Dr Claire Smith
                                                          President

                                              Dr Larry J. Zimmerman
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                            Chicago, Illinois 60605
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    Like many other people in the world, I am extremely concerned about 
the destruction of Afghanistan's cultural heritage. Since our country 
took on the responsibility of trying to provide a better future for the 
people of Afghanistan, we cannot ignore the issue of protecting 
archaeological and ethnological materials. I urge you to support H.R. 
915, the Cultural Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act. 
Our President needs the authority to impose emergency import 
restrictions of such objects, so that cultural materials (modern, 
historic, and ancient) from sovereign nations like Afghanistan are 
protected. Americans like myself deeply value our own cultural 
heritage, and we understand the similar feelings of the people of 
Afghanistan.
    As a professional archaeologist and anthropologist, I know that the 
destruction of ancient sites and traditionally valued craft goods and 
related objects is devastating to people from the affected communities 
and to the scholarly community as a whole. The illegal removal of 
archaeological and ethnological items is often done in conjunction with 
the destruction of cultural sites that are equally meaningful to 
people. We owe it to the world as a whole to help protect the rich 
cultural heritage of Afghanistan. Our gesture proving to the world that 
we care about Afghanistan's cultural heritage will improve goodwill in 
this region, and beyond.

                                           Anne P. Underhill, Ph.D.
                Associate Curator and Professor, Asian Anthropology

                                 

                                                         Unidroit-L
                                                   Goleta, CA 93117
                                                    August 30, 2005
E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
United States House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    I am writing regarding forthcoming hearings on H.R. 915, 
particularly inclusion of ancient coins in the list of restricted 
items.
    I am founder and listowner of Unidroit-L, a discussion group 
dedicated to study and discussion of cultural property law and the 
impact of such laws on collectors. Next to the 1995 Unidroit 
Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention and its implementation have been 
our most active topic. Members of this list include archaeologists, 
curators, educators, legal experts and researchers, as well as 
collectors and dealers.
    Unidroit-L has critically examined effects of cultural property law 
on antiquities collecting, including specific conventions and 
legislation. Early in this study, it became apparent that cultural 
property laws have been drafted without consideration of methods by 
which the antiquities market actually functions, or of practices 
normally followed by collectors and dealers in buying and selling 
antiquities. Certain provisions of these laws would in practice be 
quite unrealistic and unreasonable, for example those requiring 
documentation of provenance for artifacts of small value such as coins, 
for which provenance records have never been kept.
    In our discussions it soon became evident that divergences between 
perception and reality severely hamper development of realistic, 
effective cultural property laws. Misconceptions and stereotypes exist 
on both sides. Archaeologists tend to think of collectors as wealthy 
bankers, seeking rare and important antiquities to adorn their villas, 
without regard for laws violated or damage done when archaeological 
sites are plundered to satisfy their lust for the beautiful and rare. 
Collectors tend to think of archaeologists as arrogant and unrealistic 
academics, demanding total control of all excavations and everything 
ever dug up, without regard for economic practicality or damage to 
innocent, beneficial avocations such as collecting coins.
    When real archaeologists and real collectors meet in circumstances 
allowing rational discussion, they find that such preconceptions are 
wrong. Real collectors are not bankers jealously hoarding ancient 
treasures in their vaults, and real archaeologists tend to be quite 
reasonable people once you get to know them. When preconceptions and 
ideology are set aside, genuine progress toward preserving cultural 
heritage can be made while preserving and encouraging responsible, 
ethical collecting. Such free intellectual interchange does not often 
happen, because ideology rather than practical reality is presently 
driving developments.
    It has become an article of faith among preservationists that the 
antiquities market and antiquities collecting are the source of all 
ills threatening preservation of cultural heritage. If private 
collecting of antiquities could only be eliminated, so preservationists 
believe, there would be no market for stolen, smuggled or illegally 
exported artifacts, and according to this point of view, plundering of 
archaeological and cultural heritage sites would cease.
    This is a naive and unrealistic perspective. Anticollecting 
ideology has isolated preservationists from the antiquities market for 
so many years that they do not understand how it functions. Those in 
the trade know that no government or international organization will 
ever have the power to abolish the antiquities market. It will continue 
in one form or another, whatever laws or conventions may be enacted. 
Declaring the antiquities trade to be illegal would only ensure that 
instead of being openly conducted by responsible dealers bound by codes 
of ethics and laws, it would become a black market activity conducted 
by criminals. In the 1920s a similarly mistaken policy, when sale of 
alcoholic beverages was made illegal by the Volstead Act, did major 
social damage in the United States. It is recognized today that these 
negative consequences far outweighed any good that could possibly have 
been achieved. That unwise repressive law did not even reduce 
consumption of alcohol, which actually increased.
    Nations whose cultural heritage is threatened by looting and 
smuggling of antiquities and other cultural objects do not lack 
repressive laws. Every such state has laws prohibiting clandestine 
excavation or export of such items. The people of these nations do not 
respect these laws, instead viewing them as measures designed to ensure 
that corrupt officials can extort bribes, so proceeds from discoveries 
will go to them rather than the finders. Repressive antiquities 
legislation has failed everywhere it has been enacted, even in 
democratic European states such as Italy. Imposing this ineffective 
approach within the USA cannot accomplish anything positive, but would 
instead bring with it the contempt for law that prevails in antiquities 
source countries.
    One nation has effectively solved the problem of managing the 
desires of its people to discover antiquities and to profit from these 
discoveries. The United Kingdom has set a standard for the world to 
emulate in the Portable Antiquities Scheme. This well thought out 
measure has gained strong cooperation from the British public, who 
between April 2003 and March 2004 reported discovery of more than 
47,000 artifacts. Every year reporting of finds improves, and where 
Finds Liason Officers have been appointed, large increases in finds 
reports result. Local volunteer archaeologists, regional 
archaeologists, and detectorist clubs have joined in training those 
interested in searching for antiquities, defining approved processes of 
responsible discovery and reporting. In addition to ensuring that finds 
will be reported, this cooperation has developed a valuable 
``scouting'' system locating many new excavation opportunities. 
Although the Portable Antiquities Scheme is not yet ten years old and 
is still developing, it has already become far more effective in 
controlling public behavior than repressive laws in any other nation. 
It has conclusively proven that developing cooperation is a much better 
approach than repression.
    Observing how ineffective repression has always been in protecting 
antiquities, even in days when no one collected them and those caught 
disturbing tombs or monuments died instantly and unpleasantly, I have 
come to understand that the only workable way to suppress illicit 
antiquities trafficking is for preservationists, cultural authorities, 
collectors and dealers to cooperate in establishing a regulated trade 
in provenanced antiquities. There are some laws everyone obeys, whether 
or not they realize it, among which are the laws of economics. If a 
regulated trade in provenanced antiquities is established, economic 
effects will devalue unprovenanced antiquities and illicit trade will 
cease, just as abruptly as rumrunning and speakeasies disappeared when 
a regulated legal trade in alcohol was established.
    The technology and systems required to implement such a regulated 
trade presently exist, and are well proven in other applications. The 
only genuine obstacle to a cooperative licit trade is the negative, 
confrontational attitude of preservationists who advocate abolishing 
all collecting of antiquities. Cherishing illusions that legal 
prohibition of collecting is possible and would eliminate the illicit 
antiquities trade, they regard cooperation with collectors or the trade 
as unethical. All discoveries must be retained by institutions and 
cultural authorities, whether or not they have any prospect of ever 
being displayed to the public or being needed for research. Such vast 
numbers of antiquities have been amassed by official hoarding that 
there is no room to store them properly, no staff to inventory them, 
let alone organize them into collections or provide conservation. They 
rot unconserved on warehouse shelves where no one will ever benefit 
from their discovery. There have even been reports that archaeologists 
have broken intact ceramics not wanted by their institutions, to 
prevent them from falling into the hands of collectors.
    The millions of surplus artifacts presently warehoused in 
facilities without proper staff or climate control, sometimes vermin 
infested, also lack proper security. For the most part these facilities 
are not guarded, and are in constant danger of being broken into by 
thieves and vandals. The loss of millions of unpublished artifacts when 
the Beit She'an warehouse was set afire by vandals in March 2004 stands 
out among many reports of such destructive incidents. Only three weeks 
ago, the antiquities warehouse in Sidon was broken into, and thieves 
vandalized the premises before smashing two sarcophagi and stealing the 
head of one with a rare Byzantine inscription.
    Still more unpleasant to relate, the huge numbers of antiquities 
amassed in official hoards have proven an irresistible temptation to 
all too many charged with their care and protection. Recently the 
former director of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities department 
for inspecting private collections received a life sentence for taking 
bribes, forgery and profiteering by supplying smugglers with 
certificates that genuine antiquities were fakes (which can legally be 
exported). Many other reports of official complicity in illegal trading 
and smuggling (even cases of outright insider theft) can be found in 
the archive of Unidroit-L. The dirty secret of museums and cultural 
institutions is that the incidence of custodial theft and other staff 
misconduct is distressingly high. Many cases of this never come to 
light, and others are only detected after many years have passed. It is 
an open secret in the antiquities trade that most of those who staff 
museums and cultural institutions in Third World countries are poorly 
paid, poorly qualified and in far too many cases, inclined to steal 
whatever they think they can get away with.
    Finally, official hoarding of antiquities has simply created an 
artificial scarcity of licit provenanced artifacts, which sustains and 
makes possible the illicit antiquities market. There are plenty of 
antiquities to fill every museum to overflowing, satisfy all needs of 
science, and still release a large surplus of redundant unneeded 
artifacts as provenanced, licit collectibles. The unreasonable, 
uncooperative ideology of preservationists who deny provenanced 
artifacts to collectors and influence others to do so, is the real root 
cause of archaeological site looting and illicit antiquities smuggling. 
The day official hoarding is abandoned and a regulated licit market is 
established will be the day looting of archaeological sites and 
smuggling of artifacts ends.
     By any rational standard, the policy of confiscating finds and 
hoarding antiquities in official and governmental custody has proven to 
be a disastrous failure. Stored antiquities are not properly cared for, 
often being destroyed by rot, corrosion or vermin before anyone even 
examines them. They are not properly secured, becoming targets for 
vandalism and theft. They are temptations which many charged with their 
custody cannot resist, resulting in insider theft and other corrupt 
behavior. The public in nations imposing such policies do not believe 
that any of this maladministration is really for their benefit, so they 
violate these repressive laws without any moral compunctions whenever 
they think they can get away with it.
    When the United States ratified the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 1983, 
hearings were held bringing out the evils and futility of repressive 
laws in antiquities source countries. Ratification was enacted with 
significant reservations. The CPIA became law only after a long, 
difficult struggle in which all sides--museums, collectors, 
archaeologists, dealers, and anthropologists--advanced legitimate but 
conflicting positions. Congress did not attempt to choose sides but 
instead established a consultative process, with clear statutory 
guidelines, to determine when U.S. borders should be closed to cultural 
objects from abroad. Debate was intense because the U.S. has always 
favored free trade in allowing cultural objects to enter the United 
States. U.S. courts have repeatedly determined that the government 
should not deviate from free trade just because a cultural object 
enters this country in violation of another nation's export laws. The 
United States does not have any obligation to enforce export control 
laws of other nations.
    Preservationists have now begun an intiative to reverse the 
principle that U.S. courts will not enforce foreign export control 
laws. Such a reversal would have occurred had the United States 
ratified the 1995 UNIDROIT convention, but unified and vigorous 
opposition from the entire U.S. museum, collector, and dealer community 
convinced the State Department to abandon that initiative. Instead, the 
1970 UNESCO Convention is now being exploited in an attempt to achieve 
that policy reversal as an administrative matter under authority of the 
CPIA, with a goal of administratively changing U.S. law to enforce 
foreign export control laws, clearly exceeding the originally intended 
scope of the CPIA. H.R. 915 is one part of this preservationist 
initiative.
    In considering measures such as H.R. 915, one must realize that 
although preservationists may have good intentions and laudable moral 
values, the measures they propose are not thereby guaranteed to be wise 
or well considered. Without going into the merits of this bill as a 
whole, I will present reasons why inclusion of ancient coins in the 
list of restricted objects would be inappropriate, unwise, and might 
well exceed the authority given to the President by section 304 of the 
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2603). I 
shall further discuss the difficulties that would confront U.S. Customs 
in attempting to enforce such a restriction, and explain why the only 
conceivable approach for enforcing such a restriction would place an 
impossible and unjust burden on importers of ancient coins.
    The CPIA was intended to deal with highly publicized instances of 
pillage that led to enactment of the 1970 UNESCO Convention--looting of 
tombs and monuments, and destruction and dismantling of archaeological 
sites into movable objects. The Act was designed to provide a 
particular remedy under U.S. import laws to bar entry of important 
cultural properties which were actively being looted abroad. Congress 
clearly did not contemplate any wholesale ban on foreign cultural goods 
coming into the United States.
    The CPIA allows the United States to entertain requests from 
foreign nations to bar import of significant specific cultural objects 
which are currently being pillaged. For such a request to be found 
justified, there must be specific evidence of pillage of the embargoed 
goods. Section 2602(a)(2)(A) states that the United States can apply 
import restrictions ``to archeological or ethnological material . . . 
the pillage of which is creating jeopardy to the cultural patrimony'' 
of the requesting state. The Senate report accompanying the CPIA 
confirmed that the new law would authorize the President ``to apply 
specific import or other controls (upon the request of a State Party) 
to archaeological or ethnological materials specifically identified as 
comprising part of a state's cultural patrimony that is in danger of 
being pillaged.''
    A second essential feature of the CPIA is that the United States 
retains discretion to make its own decision under its laws, without 
accepting a foreign nation's characterization of the articles in 
question. Clearly, the U.S. government is not justified in imposing 
import restrictions on the assertion that import of particular objects 
would violate another nation's export control laws.
    There are no grounds for believing that ancient Afghani coins are 
being pillaged today, or have ever been pillaged, on a scale or in a 
manner that jeopardizes the cultural patrimony of Afghanistan. With 
rare exceptions, coins really are not objects of importance to any 
nation's cultural patrimony. Italy certainly has as great a cultural 
patrimony as any nation. During their long history, the peoples of 
ancient Italy struck coins of unrivalled quality and variety. Italy was 
among the first nations to institute legal measures to protect its 
cultural heritage. On June 26, 2005 the Italian government recognized 
that nearly all ancient coins are of such minor cultural importance 
that Italy will no longer require that they be declared to authorities 
when found, or control their export. The few exceptions to this law are 
coins and medals of great rarity or exceptional individual cultural 
significance.
    There is no evidence that anyone disturbs archaeological or 
cultural sites in Afghanistan with a view toward finding ancient coins. 
Tombs, temples and other monuments are very unrewarding places to 
prospect for ancient coins in most parts of the world, as are cities 
and other built up areas. Coins are sometimes found during excavations 
of such sites, but normally these finds are individual coins 
inadvertently lost or discarded, rather than intentionally concealed 
hoards. With rare exceptions, hoards were concealed in out of the way 
places such as in fields or in the woods. This can be clearly seen in 
the 2002 UK report of treasure finds, where only three per cent of 
finds were discovered in the course of archaeological excavations while 
ninety five per cent were discovered by detectorists.
    Apart from the magnitude of this statistical difference, there is 
an important quality difference between coins found in excavations and 
hoards discovered by detectorists. Individually buried coins are rarely 
found in collectible condition. They may be useful for dating strata 
under favorable conditions where upward migration can be ruled out, but 
after exposure to centuries or millennia of corrosion on all surfaces, 
they are usually worth little or nothing to collectors.
    Coins discovered by detectorists were mostly buried in large 
groups, and are often recovered in intact pots or other containers 
which protected them against corrosion. Even in cases where the 
container has perished, it is common to find coins fused together in a 
lump of corrosion products. When the corrosion products are removed by 
conservators, large numbers of coins from the interior of the lump are 
often found to be in relatively pristine condition, retaining a high 
value to collectors. These are the treasures, sometimes containing tens 
of thousands of individual coins, that motivate detectorists to 
prospect for coins.
    Not only are there no valid grounds for classifying coins as 
significant specific cultural objects whose pillage jeopardizes the 
cultural patrimony of Afghanistan, there is no reasonable way to 
distinguish coins originating in Afghanistan from those originating 
elsewhere. In ancient times there was no Afghanistan, which was not 
unified into a single political entity until 1747. During most of 
antiquity, coins were issued in that part of South Central Asia by 
authorities whose realms extended far beyond the borders of present day 
Afghanistan. Most types of coins struck in what is now Afghanistan 
circulated over large parts of the ancient world, and likewise coins 
from distant lands circulated widely in these territories that later 
became modern Afghanistan.
    I will now briefly summarize the pre-Islamic numismatic history of 
Afghanistan.
    Before Alexander the Great conquered Persia, Afghanistan comprised 
parts of several Persian satrapies (provinces), Bactria and Sogdiana 
being the most important. The Persian Empire issued coinage only in 
Asia Minor, for use by its Greek subjects and for paying Greek 
mercenaries.
    Alexander conquered Afghanistan between 330 and 327 b.c., founding 
Hellenic colonies populated by Greek and Macedonian veterans and their 
followers. During his reign and that of Philip III, some interesting 
coins were struck in Bactria, although these were not Macedonian 
imperial issues. After 305 b.c. Seleukos, the satrap of Babylon, 
extended his rule to the eastern provinces of the Alexandrine Empire, 
establishing mints at Bactra and An Khanoum. His control of much of 
this area was tenuous. In 303 b.c. he ceded Pakistan, the Kabul Valley 
and southeastern Afghanistan to Chandragupta Maurya, the Indian ruler 
who introduced Buddhism into Afghanistan. While these areas were under 
Mauryan domination, Indian punchmarked coins were used. The Eastern 
Hellenic realm comprised Bactria (northern Afghanistan and part of 
Turkmenistan) and Sogdiana (Uzbekistan), whose most important city was 
Samarkand. Greek coins with royal Seleukid types were issued until in 
256 b.c., the Seleukid realm lost its eastern provinces. Parthia (in 
Iran, west of Afghanistan) became an independent kingdom, gradually 
absorbing much of the old Persian Empire, while Bactria and Sogdiana 
became an Indo-Greek kingdom under Diodotos, who issued his own coinage 
modeled on Seleukid types. The Seleukid ruler Antiochos III made a 
last, unsuccessful effort to regain these eastern provinces in 206 b.c.
    Thereafter the Indo-Greeks expanded into Pakistan and India, though 
pressed by Scythians and other nomads from the north. Sogdiana was soon 
lost, but Demetrios I regained the Kabul valley around 180 b.c. and 
then further expanded Indo-Greek power into the northern Indus valley. 
Bilingual issues with Greek obverse inscriptions and Indian (Karoshthi) 
reverse inscriptions were struck for Indo-Greek subjects who spoke 
Indic languages.
    Around 130 b.c. the Yueh-Chih, a Central Asian nomad tribe, began a 
migration that drove their Scythian neighbors into Bactria. The 
Scythians conquered most of that province, Indo-Greeks retaining only 
its eastern part where silver mines supported what remained of their 
power. After the fall of Bactria, Indo-Greek Afghanistan comprised 
Badakshan, Tocharestan and the Kabul Valley. The kingdom shifted 
eastward into the northern Indus valley and Kashmir, where its capital 
became Pushkalavati in Gandhara (present day Pakistan). The Scythian 
invasion continued from Bactria down the western edge of the central 
Afghan massif, then eastward through the southern province of Arachosia 
and beyond to the Indus. There Indo-Scythian rulers battled the Indo-
Greeks for a century, issuing coins with bilingual Greek/Indic legends. 
Scythians who settled in western Afghanistan meanwhile became tributary 
to the Parthian kingdom.
    About 25 b.c. the Yueh-Chih expanded from Sogdiana into Bactria, 
taking over Indo-Greek holdings in northern Afghanistan, after which 
the Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian kingdoms were cut off from their 
silver supply. As the Yueh-Chih took control of Bactria, Scythians in 
western Afghanistan (now known as Indo-Parthians) threw off Parthian 
dominion and marched eastward into the realm of the Indo-Scythians, 
issuing coinage that initially emulated Indo-Scythian types. By the 
beginning of the Christian era the remnants of the Indo-Greek and Indo-
Scythian kingdoms had fallen to the Indo-Parthians and to the Yueh-
Chih, who later became known as the Kushans. The Indo-Parthians ruled 
the Hellenized parts of North India and Pakistan until the Kushans also 
conquered these areas, after which the Indo-Parthians retreated into 
southern Afghanistan, controlling Sakastan and Turan before becoming 
tributary to Persia in 230 a.d.
    At its height the Kushan Empire comprised northern Afghanistan, 
most of Pakistan and much of northern India. Its coinage began as a 
continuation of Indo-Scythian types, evolving into a distinct Indic 
style with Bactrian legends. Persia eventually proved too strong for 
the Kushans, gradually taking over the western part of their realm as 
the vassal kingdom of Kushanshahr, where hybrid Kushano-Sasanian coin 
types were issued. About 350 a.d. the dynast Kidara seized power in 
Peshawar, from which he was able to repel the Sasanians and take over 
remnants of the Kushan Empire, including parts of Afghanistan. This new 
kingdom soon split into four Kidarite successor regimes, of which the 
one centered in Peshawar endured until 460 a.d.
    When Kidara revolted, the Hepthalites or White Hun subjects of 
Persia seized power in Bactria. The Persians had the worst of the 
struggle and their king Peroz was captured. The Hepthalites then 
conquered most of Afghanistan and the Kidarite dominion, issuing 
coinage emulating Sasanian prototypes. About 560 a.d. the Sasanians 
under Khusru I had their revenge. In alliance with the Turks, they 
reconquered most of Afghanistan but could not hold these gains, Bactria 
and eastern Afghanistan being absorbed by the Turkish khanate. After 
the khanate split into independent kingdoms around 600 a.d., the 
Persians made a temporary recovery, but the Sasanian regime 
disintegrated after a disastrous war with the Byzantine Empire, falling 
to the rising power of Islam in 651 a.d. By 700 a.d. most of 
Afghanistan had been absorbed into the Caliphate, although the Kabul 
Valley and southeastern Afghanistan still remained under Turko-
Hepthalite control.
    After Alexander's conquest, pre-Islamic Afghanistan was always 
divided between contending regimes, whose borders in most cases 
extended well beyond the present boundaries of Afghanistan. Our 
knowledge of the mints of these authorities is still very incomplete. 
Coins from all parts of these realms circulated within Afghanistan, 
among coins from other areas. An indicator of this diversity is the 
Qunduz hoard, catalogued by Curiel and Fussman in 1965. It includes an 
Alexandrine imperial coin, Seleukid types issued long after Indo-Greek 
independence, and large numbers of Indo-Greek coins struck in areas 
that later became part of Pakistan.
    Pre-Islamic coin types known to have circulated within Afghanistan, 
which might (however improbably in the case of any individual coin) 
have been discovered in Afghanistan, include issues of the Alexandrine 
Macedonian Empire, the Seleukid Kingdom, various Indo-Greek kingdoms, 
Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian kingdoms, Sogdiana and various Central 
Asian polities, the Parthian Kingdom, Sasanian Persia, Kushanshahr, 
Indian rulers and China.
    There is nothing about any individual coin in a typical shipment 
defining its origin, which is legally defined as the place of its 
discovery. That cannot be determined by examination. Many ancient coins 
have been in collections for long periods. The original place of 
discovery is very rarely recorded, usually only when a coin was part of 
a numismatically significant hoard.
    Moreover, a coin may not have been discovered at all. There are 
undoubtedly a great many ancient coins that have never been buried, 
always having been held in treasures before ultimately finding their 
way into collections. Monetary use of ancient coins did not cease in 
ancient times. After World War I, for example, Turkey paid some of its 
reparations with Byzantine gold solidi that had been held for many 
centuries in the Ottoman imperial treasury. Roman coins circulated in 
some parts of Europe into the eighteenth century. No one can say what 
ancient coins have passed from merchant to merchant over the centuries 
in the souks and bazaars of Central Asia and India.
    The only conceivable way to ensure that no coins originating in 
Afghanistan are allowed to enter the U.S. would be to require the 
importer to prove the provenance of each imported example of a very 
wide range of ancient coin types. Because such provenance information 
has never been recorded for nearly all ancient coins, in practice very 
few shipments could be allowed. Placing such an extreme burden of proof 
on an importer transcends all reason. Preservationists who seek to 
outlaw collecting might view the chaos and inequities that would ensue 
as a desirable result, but it would go far beyond anything Congress 
intended to authorize in passing the CPIA.
    I urge the Committee to take a conservative approach in considering 
inclusion of coins in the restrictions authorized by H. R. 915. There 
is no evidence that inclusion of coins can accomplish anything good. 
There is considerable reason to think that arguments for including 
objects such as coins are based on false premises, following a 
repressive policy that has uniformly failed wherever it has been 
applied. There are strong grounds for concluding that inclusion of 
coins would exceed the authority given to the President by the CPIA. 
Finally, there is no reasonable way to include coins in these 
restrictions without imposing an impossible requirement to prove 
provenance, excluding very large numbers of coins which (if their 
provenance could somehow accurately be determined) actually originated 
outside the present day borders of Afghanistan.
                                                     David E. Welsh

                                 

                        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                                              Chapel Hill, NC 27599
                                                     24 August 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    I am writing to urge your support for including H.R. 915 Cultural 
Conservation of the Crossroads of Civilization Act (``A bill to 
authorize the President to take certain actions to protect 
archaeological or ethnological materials of Afghanistan'') in the 
Miscellaneous Tariffs bill. This Act grants authority to the President 
to impose emergency import restrictions to prevent the import into the 
United States of antiquities and other cultural materials that have 
been illegally removed from Afghan cultural institutions and other 
locations, particularly archaeological sites in Afghanistan. This 
legislation is necessary because archaeological sites are now being 
looted on a large scale in Afghanistan. The heritage of Afghanistan has 
played an important role in the world's historical and cultural 
development. The looting of sites destroys the historical, cultural, 
religious and scientific information that is derived through the 
careful, systematic excavation of sites. When this record is destroyed 
we are all the poorer for it.
    The looting of sites and theft from museums in Afghanistan have 
been significant problems for many years. As with Iraq, the United 
States has undertaken a special relationship with Afghanistan. Concern 
for preservation of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan must be given 
equal consideration.
    Sites are looted of antiquities so that they can be sold ultimately 
to markets in Western Europe and the United States. It is crucial that 
the President be given this authority to prevent the import into the 
United States of looted cultural materials and thereby reduce the 
incentive for theft and destruction of archaeological sites. Enactment 
of this legislation will help the United States to fulfill its 
obligations to the Afghan people and help to enrich our understanding 
of the world's and our own cultural heritage.
    As Professor of Religious Studies at a large state university 
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), I teach students about 
the importance of the world's cultural heritage, which belongs to all 
of us. Here is a case where the U.S. can help preserve this heritage. I 
hope you will support this legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                                Jodi Magness, Ph.D.
    Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early 
                                                            Judaism
                                    Department of Religious Studies

                                 

 Statement of American Iron & Steel Institute, Cold Finished Steel Bar 
  Institute, Committee on Pipe & Tube Imports, Metals Service Center 
      Institute, Specialty Steel Industry of North America, Steel 
Manufacturers Association, United Steelworkers, and Wire Rod Producers' 
                               Coalition
    The above listed trade groups and union (hereinafter referred to as 
the industry), on behalf of their members in the United States, 
submitted comments to the Department of Commerce on or about May 10, 
2005 on the interim final rule for the Steel Import Monitoring and 
Analysis system (SIMA) issued by the Department on March 11, 2005 as 
70FR 12,133 (See attached). These organizations represent companies 
engaged in the overwhelming majority of steel production and 
distribution in the U.S., as well as the trade union representing the 
majority of production workers.
    In our comments to Commerce, the industry discussed various 
deficiencies and limitations of the SIMA interim final rule, and made 
recommendations which we asked Commerce to consider. The final rule has 
not been released by Commerce.
    While the Commerce interim final rule has significant strengths, 
H.R. 1068 effectively addresses the deficiencies and limitations of 
that rule.
    The steel industry strongly supports the passage of H.R. 1068. We 
also appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important bill, and 
your consideration of the broad need for a comprehensive and permanent 
steel import licensing and monitoring program.

                                 

                                American Wire Producers Association
                                         Alexandria, Virginia 22314
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman,

    On behalf of the member companies of the American Wire Producers 
Association (AWPA), we want to express our support for the inclusion of 
HR 1068 in the miscellaneous trade bill. The AWPA is a national trade 
association representing over 85% of the producers of carbon, alloy, 
and stainless steel wire in the United States. Member companies employ 
more than 76,000 workers at over 255 plants in 34 states, and they have 
combined annual sales in excess of $18 billion.
    We offer the following reasons why the proposed legislation to 
maintain the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) program and to 
expand its coverage to steel wire products meets the Chairman's four 
criteria for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill:
Revenue Gains
    This bill has no impact on the revenue of the U.S. Government.
Retroactive Effect
    HR 1068 has no retroactive effect; it merely makes a current 
federal program permanent and expands it to include an important 
component of the U.S. steel industry.
Controversial
    The domestic steel trade associations and U.S. steel producers 
consider wire products to be an integral part of the American steel 
industry. The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the Steel 
Manufacturers Association (SMA), the Specialty Steel Industry of North 
America (SSINA), United States Steel Corporation, IPSCO Enterprises, 
and the United Steelworkers of America--among others--have urged that 
wire products be covered by the SIMA program. Additionally, during the 
OECD steel subsidy negotiations, the United States Government 
recognized wire products as part of the steel sector by pressing for 
coverage and/or monitoring of these products.
Administrative Burden
    AWPA has requested that the SIMA monitoring program include the 
following categories of steel wire products, which are also covered by 
HR 1068:

    1.  Steel wire strand, rope, and cable (HTS 7312); Barbed wire (HTS 
7313);
    2.  Steel wire cloth, grill, netting and fencing (HTS 7314);
    3.  Steel wire nails and staples (HTS 7317); and
    4.  Steel wire garment hangers (HTS 7326.20.0020).

    The inclusion of these few additional but vital products in the 
SIMA program would require no modifications to the licensing or 
reporting forms or to the procedures or data collection established 
with respect to the current SIMA program. It would impose little or no 
additional burden on the Commerce Department's administration of the 
program.
    We also would like to offer the following additional reasons why HR 
1068 should be included in the miscellaneous trade bill.
Burden on Importers
    Coverage of steel wire products will not be burdensome because the 
trading companies and importers which handle wire products also deal 
with steel products covered by SIMA. Thus, the companies are already 
familiar with the requirements and procedures.
International Consistency
    Coverage of steel wire products will make the SIMA program 
consistent with the Canadian ``steel import surveillance programme'' 
which covers wire products, including steel wire rope, strand, cable, 
barbed wire, nails, and staples.
Early Warning
    An important purpose of the SIMA program is to provide invaluable 
``early warning'' of any changes in import trends, volumes and sources. 
American manufacturers of wire products would be able to react more 
quickly and meaningfully to such changes, and the information from the 
SIMA program would be extremely beneficial to U.S. wire and wire 
products companies which are competing in a global steel market.
    For these reasons, we respectfully encourage you and the other 
members of the Subcommittee to include HR 1068 in the final 
miscellaneous trade bill.

                                                     Robert Moffitt
                                                          President

                                 

         Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable 
                                                      Manufacturers
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    These comments are submitted on behalf of the Committee of Domestic 
Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (Committee) in 
support of H.R. 1068, a bill to maintain and expand the steel import 
licensing and monitoring program. The Committee is composed of U.S. 
manufacturers which together account for the vast majority of steel 
wire rope production in the United States.
    Pursuant to Section 1(b)(2) of H.R. 1068, the steel import 
licensing and monitoring program would be expanded to include steel 
articles classified in heading 7312 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) response to notice published at 70 Fed. 
Reg. 12133 (March 11, 2005). This heading includes steel wire rope 
(subheadings 7312.10.60 and 7312.10.90, HTSUS).
    Steel articles classified under heading 7312, HTSUS, are not 
currently included in the steel import monitoring and analysis (SIMA) 
system implemented by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2004. The 
reason for this exclusion is that products classified under this 
heading of the HTSUS did not receive import relief as a result of the 
section 201 investigation of Certain Steel Products. Despite the 
demonstrable loss of market share to imports and the dramatic serious 
injury being suffered, the industry's plight was ignored, and the 
product was included in an arbitrary ``product grouping'' that included 
other unrelated products, most notably tire cord, that are not 
manufactured by the U.S. steel wire rope industry. This arbitrary 
product grouping resulted in aggregated data that masked the serious 
injury from which this industry is suffering. As a result, steel wire 
rope suffered the negative determination that the U.S. International 
Trade Commission (ITC) issued as to the arbitrary product grouping as a 
whole.
    The U.S. steel wire rope industry strongly believes that this 
result was unfair and unjust. The ITC did not investigate and consider 
this industry's condition, and the outcome was contrary to the very 
reason that a comprehensive section 201 investigation was requested 
(specifically including steel wire rope) and conducted in the first 
place. Indeed, in reviewing the ITC's determinations, two facts remain 
inescapable:

      None of the product groupings that received an 
affirmative determination from the ITC in the section 201 investigation 
suffers from as high an import penetration rate as does the U.S. steel 
wire rope industry.
      During the period examined by the ITC, the U.S. steel 
wire rope industry lost more market share to imports than eight of the 
product groupings that received affirmative determinations.

    Since the ITC's ``section 201'' investigation, the condition of 
this industry continued to deteriorate as a result of increasing import 
penetration of the U.S. steel wire rope market. Indeed, in 2004, the 
level of steel wire rope imports (as measured in tonnage) was the by 
far the highest annual total on record (115,063 net tons, which was 
which was 9 percent higher than the second highest annual total). 
Domestic shipments of steel wire rope by U.S. manufacturers in 2004 
were the third lowest annual level on record: indeed, the two lowest 
annual levels were recorded in 2002 and 2003, which means that the 
three worst years for U.S. steel wire rope manufacturers as measured by 
the volume of domestic shipments transpired during the three years 
after the ``section 201'' investigation was completed.
    As a result of the quantifiable trends outlined above, imports 
captured 55 percent of the U.S. steel wire rope market in 2004, which 
was the highest level on record. Through the first six months of this 
year, the import share of the U.S. market has risen to 55.7 percent.
    The Committee is aware that the SIMA system created in connection 
with the implementation of safeguard measures covered only those 
imports on which restraints had been imposed. Of course, that 
distinction is now history, as the safeguard measures were terminated 
by President Bush in December 2003. In any case, the Committee 
respectfully submits that as a matter of national policy, if not of 
fundamental justice, it is critical that the system be extended to 
cover imports of steel wire rope.\1\ The U.S. steel wire rope industry 
is suffering profound injury by reason of a relentless surge in imports 
of the product over the past several years. Having failed to provide 
import relief for this critical U.S. industry because of the arbitrary 
``grouping'' of the ITC's section 201 investigation, extension of the 
SIMA system to imports of steel wire rope would at least assist the 
industry to prepare its competitive stance on a real-time basis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ On this point, the Committee notes that the interim final rule 
regarding the SIMA system published by the Department of Commerce in 
March 2005 encompassed certain so-called ``downstream'' products 
classified in chapter 73 of the HTSUS; therefore the Committee's 
support for expansion of the licensing system to cover imports of steel 
wire rope, as envisioned by H.R. 1068, would not undercut any existing 
``bright lines'' regarding product coverage.
    \2\ The Committee notes that there are no statutory or regulatory 
provisions that would bar extension of the SIMA system to steel wire 
rope. Indeed, as an ``automatic'' licensing system, the SIMA system--
imposing as it does minimal burden on applicants, and having no 
``import restricting effects''--is specifically envisioned by Article 2 
of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures completed under the 
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Extension of the SIMA system to imports of steel wire rope is, of 
course, not a cure-all for the pernicious effects that imports have 
upon this critical U.S. manufacturing industry. Its restorative impact 
will not be immediate, or even apparent to most. However, it is a tool 
that this Government can provide this industry as it fights to stay 
alive. It would be a demonstration that this Government is concerned 
about the fate of its critical manufacturing industries.
    Indeed, if the U.S. industry had this tool in the earlier time 
periods--for example, during the 1996-1998 span when imports increased 
by over 25,000 tons and the import penetration rate jumped from 
approximately 40 percent to nearly 50 percent as a result of the 
``Asian flu''--it would have been much better positioned to react 
expeditiously to the radical change in market conditions. Application 
of the SIMA system to steel wire rope imports would not have solved all 
the problems which the industry endured as a result of those events. 
However, with real-time information such as that provided by an import 
licensing system, the industry might have been able to stave off the 
most debilitating effects of the market tumult. This type of real-time 
information is absolutely essential if the U.S. steel wire rope 
industry is to meet the challenges of future import surges, whether or 
not they are connected to exchange rate manipulation and the predatory 
practices with which this industry has been repeatedly confronted in 
the past. Foreign suppliers will be put on notice that the U.S. steel 
wire rope industry will react in the marketplace, and in the 
Government.
    For these reasons, we urge the Congress to pass, and for the 
President to sign into law, H.R. 1068 as a provision within the so-
called ``miscellaneous tariff bill,'' to include imports of steel wire 
rope as a product subject to an extended SIMA system.
                                                   Jeffrey S. Levin
                                      Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard
                                           Harris Ellsworth & Levin
                                          International Trade Group

                                 

                                     Independent Steelworkers Union
                                       Weirton, West Virginia 26062
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Independent Steelworkers Union (``ISU'') represents over 2,000 
steelworkers at the Weirton facility of Mittal Steel USA, in Weirton, 
West Virginia. ISU is grateful for the chance to submit comments on 
bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade 
package. In particular, ISU is interested in H.R. 1068, ``A bill to 
maintain and expand the steel import licensing and monitoring 
program,'' H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 
relating to determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    ISU supports the inclusion of H.R. 1068 in the miscellaneous trade 
bill and urges Congress to pass it into law. H.R. 1068 is an important 
bill and one that should not attract significant controversy. H.R. 1068 
simply expands and makes permanent the steel import monitoring program 
that was established as part of the president's steel safeguard action 
in 2002. This successful program has enabled U.S. producers and 
policymakers to stay current on shifts in trade flows in the steel 
sector and, when necessary, to take appropriate action. Making the 
program permanent will help prevent future import surges like those in 
the late 1990s, which resulted in thousands of lost steelworker jobs. 
Expanding the program as proposed in H.R. 1068 would provide for 
complete coverage of all steel mill products, allowing for a more 
comprehensive analysis of steel imports. H.R. 1068, which modifies and 
expands a successful, existing program, is representative of the sort 
of bill that logically ought to be included in the miscellaneous trade 
package. ISU supports its inclusion and enactment.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are bills that should not be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills, if passed, 
would significantly weaken U.S. trade remedy laws and are thus likely 
to attract a great deal of opposition. The U.S. needs strong, effective 
trade remedy laws to ensure a level playing field for U.S. 
manufacturers and workers. Given a fair market, the U.S. steel industry 
can compete with any foreign rivals. However, ISU is all too familiar 
with the effect of surges of steel imports at dumped and subsidized 
prices. That is why the trade laws must remain in place, to prevent and 
offset unfair trade and to provide a remedy for injury caused by it. 
The miscellaneous trade bill should not be used to chip away at these 
critical laws. That is why H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 must be excluded 
from the package.
    H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes funds to 
certain domestic parties that have been injured by dumped and 
subsidized imports for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people. The source of the funds for CDSOA is antidumping and 
countervailing duties, which are collected when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. Where dumping 
or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no funds to 
distribute. That means the AD/CVD orders are working as intended. CDSOA 
does not change the methodology used by Commerce to calculate dumping 
margins or subsidy rates and it has no effect on the amount of duty 
that must be paid. The program simply distributes funds to injured 
parties, pursuant to generally applicable criteria, when unfair trade 
practices do not cease. There is broad bi-partisan support among 
Members of Congress and the public for CDSOA, and any legislation to 
repeal the law would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. In ISU's view, H.R. 1121 is not a bill that should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. This is hardly a technical amendment, however. If 
enacted, H.R. 2473 would severely limit Commerce's ability to 
effectively enforce the antidumping law. In effect, H.R. 2473 would 
make it nearly impossible in most cases for Commerce to calculate the 
dumping margin for non-investigated exporters, known as the ``all-
others'' rate. The ``all-others'' rate is a weighted average of dumping 
margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. Under 
current law, dumping margins that are based entirely on ``facts 
available'' data are not included in the average. ``Facts available'' 
refers to data used by Commerce to calculate a dumping margin when a 
respondent company does not supply all the actual company-specific that 
is needed. Margins that are based only partially on facts available are 
used in the calculation of the ``all-others'' rate. In practice, this 
is necessary because many of the dumping margins Commerce calculates 
are based on at least some ``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would prohibit Commerce from using any dumping margins in 
the ``all-others'' rate calculation that are based on any amount of 
``facts available'' data. In most cases, this would effectively leave 
Commerce with no margins to use in calculating an ``all-others'' rate. 
Consequently, H.R. 2473 would create serious administrative 
difficulties for the Department, necessarily weakening the antidumping 
law. For these reasons, H.R. 2473 will almost certainly attract 
significant controversy and would, for practical purposes, not be 
administrable by Commerce.
    ISU also finds it disturbing that the apparent purpose of H.R. 1121 
and H.R. 2473 is to implement World Trade Organization (``WTO'') panel 
and Appellate Body decisions that have gone against the U.S. That 
purpose is inconsistent with the purpose of the miscellaneous trade 
bill, which has historically been non-controversial legislation. 
Furthermore, Congress and the Administration have repeatedly criticized 
the overreaching of WTO panels and the Appellate Body, in these 
disputes in particular, and have consistently maintained that, in the 
decisions on CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, new obligations were 
created that the U.S. never agreed to. These new rules are nowhere to 
be found in the text of any WTO Agreement. Congress has also previously 
called for the Administration to resolve these disputes through 
negotiations at the WTO. Those negotiations are in progress as part of 
the Doha Round and the Administration should be allowed to work within 
that process to see whether, through negotiation, the problems created 
by panel and Appellate Body overreaching can be corrected. 
Consequently, it would not be appropriate to include H.R. 1121 and H.R. 
2473 in the miscellaneous trade package.
    ISU appreciates the Subcommittee accepting these comments and 
taking them into consideration during its deliberations.
                                                       Mark Glyptis
                                                          President

                                 

                                           Trinity Industries, Inc.
                                                Dallas, Texas 75207
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity), and pursuant to 
Advisory TR-3 (July 25, 2005), we hereby submit these comments 
regarding H.R. 1068, one of the bills identified in that advisory. 
Trinity supports this bill's proposals to (1) establish a permanent 
steel import licensing and monitoring system, (2) expand the coverage 
of the system to include all iron and steel, including heading 7307 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and (3) 
release import and licensing data to the public at the tenth digit 
level of the HTSUS. For the reasons discussed herein, Trinity urges the 
Subcommittee on Trade to include H.R. 1068 in a miscellaneous trade 
package.
I. Trinity is a Member of the Steel Industry for which the President 
        Created the Steel Import Licensing and Monitoring System
    Trinity, through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary, 
Trinity Fittings Group, Inc., is a U.S. manufacturer of carbon and 
alloy steel butt-weld pipe fittings (BWPF). Trinity competes in the 
U.S. market with imported BWPF, which are classified in tariff items 
7307.93.3000, 7307.93.6000, 7307.93.9030, and 7307.93.9060 of the 
HTSUS.
    Trinity and other members of the domestic BWPF industry were active 
participants in the U.S. International Trade Commission's (ITC) 2001 
investigation under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2252 regarding certain steel 
products.\1\ In that investigation, Trinity argued, and the ITC 
ultimately determined, that carbon and alloy steel ``fittings,'' a 
product category that included BWPF classified in 7307.93.3000, 
7307.93.6000, 7307.93.9030, and 7307.93.9060, HTSUS, were ``being 
imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a 
substantial cause of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to 
the domestic industry producing articles like or directly competitive 
with the imported articles--.'' \2\ On March 5, 2002, pursuant to this 
determination, President Bush implemented safeguard measures with 
respect to imports of steel products including BWPF.\3\
    In connection with these safeguard measures, the President 
instructed the Department of Commerce and the Department of the 
Treasury to establish a system of import licensing and monitoring 
regarding the steel products covered by the safeguard measures.\4\ This 
is the system referenced in Section 1 of H.R. 1068. Regulations 
implementing that system (SIMA-I) were published on December 31, 
2002.\5\ Effective December 5, 2003, the President terminated the 
safeguard measures.\6\ However, in taking this action, the President 
specified that SIMA-I was to remain in effect--without any changes to 
its product coverage--``until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such 
time as the Secretary of Commerce establishes a replacement program.'' 
\7\
    While Trinity viewed the President's termination of the safeguard 
measures as premature, it was encouraged by President's decision to 
continue the SIMA-I system. Particularly encouraging was the 
President's explanation that his intention in retaining SIMA-I was to 
``keep the positive momentum going--so that my Administration can 
quickly respond to future import surges that could unfairly damage the 
industry.'' \8\
II. The Department of Commerce Has Announced its Intention to Terminate 
        the Benefits of the SIMA System for Trinity and Other Domestic 
        Producers
    On March 11, 2005, after H.R. 1068 was introduced, the Department 
published an interim final rule that announced several important 
revisions to the SIMA-I system.\9\ The most significant of these 
changes were: (1) to implement the system for an additional four years 
beyond its current expiration date; (2) to expand the coverage of the 
system ``to include all basic steel mill products''; (3) to release 
more detailed statistics based on licensing data; and (4) to terminate 
licensing for, and thus eliminate the collection of import data for, 
``certain downstream steel products now covered, specifically, carbon 
and alloy flanges and pipe fittings.'' \10\ We will refer to this 
modified system as ``SIMA-II.''
    The erim Final Ruleas Trinity's first notice that the continuation 
of the import licensing and monitoring system would eliminate the 
product grouping that is of direct interest to Trinity. The SIMA-I 
system had permitted Trinity to monitor trends in imports of carbon 
steel flanges and fittings well in advance of the statistics released 
by the Bureau of the Census. Consequently, Trinity argued vehemently in 
comments to the Department that it should specify in its final rule 
(scheduled to be issued by September 30, 2005) that carbon steel 
flanges and fittings will be maintained in the SIMA-II system. However, 
because it is not at all certain that the Department will reverse its 
erim Final Rulend return Trinity's products to the steel monitoring 
system, Trinity is submitting these comments in support of H.R. 1068.
III. H.R. 1068 Would Restore to Trinity the Benefits that the 
        Department of Commerce Appears Poised to Eliminate
     The Department of Commerce has announced its intention to exclude 
from SIMA-II the steel products that Trinity manufactures because they 
are ``downstream products.'' On the other hand, President Bush made no 
such distinction when he provided safeguard measures, including the 
SIMA-I system, to aid U.S. steel manufacturers, including producers of 
carbon steel fittings and flanges. Particularly as the Department of 
Commerce has announced its plans to extend the operation of the steel 
import licensing and monitoring system, as well as to depart from and 
expand the original scope of the monitoring system, Trinity submits 
that it is appropriate to further modify the system as set out in H.R. 
1068. The expanded system proposed by this legislation would encompass 
the U.S. steel industry--an industry which the President recognized 
includes both ``upstream'' and ``downstream'' products. U.S. steel 
producers, including those like Trinity that manufacture the type of 
steel products classified in heading 7307, HTSUS, continue to face 
intense competition from imports, and would benefit from the detailed, 
advance information on imports provided through the system as modified 
by H.R. 1068.
V. Conclusion

    Certain members of the U.S. steel industry, including, until 
recently, Trinity, have received valuable information through the 
Department of Commerce's steel import licensing and monitoring system. 
The President originally implemented this system in recognition of 
certain producers' vulnerability to future surges in import volumes. 
But the Department of Commerce has expanded the system to include many 
steel products that were not covered by the original relief measures, 
and at the same time decided to exclude from the benefits of the system 
steel products that it designated as ``downstream products.'' To ensure 
that Trinity and other similarly situated domestic producers are not 
deprived of this valuable source of advance import data, Trinity offers 
its support for the inclusion of H.R. 1068 in a miscellaneous trade 
package.
                                                   Cheryl Ellsworth

                                                John B. Totaro, Jr.
                                Counsel to Trinity Industries, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Steel (Investigation No. TA-201-73), USITC Pub. 3479 
(December 2001) (Steel), Vol. III at B-64 (identifying the President of 
Trinity Fitting Group, Inc. as a witness at the ITC's October 1, 2001 
hearing on injury) and B-103 (identifying the President of Trinity 
Fitting Group, Inc. as a witness at the ITC's November 8, 2001 hearing 
on remedy). See also Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic 
Industry (Investigation No. TA-204-9), USITC Pub. 3632 (September 2003) 
at B-6 (identifying the President of Trinity Fitting Group, Inc. as a 
witness at the ITC's July 17, 2003 hearing regarding developments in 
the 10 industries producing steel products corresponding to those 
subject to the safeguard measures since the imposition of import 
relief).
    \2\ Steel at 1, n.1, 14, 26.
    \3\ Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002; To Facilitate Positive 
Adjustment to Competition From Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 
Fed. Reg. 10553 (March 7, 2002).
    \4\ Memorandum of March 5, 2002; Action Under Section 203 of the 
Trade Act of 1974 Concerning Certain Steel Products, 67 Fed. Reg. 
10593, 10596 (March 7, 2002).
    \5\ Steel Import Licensing and Surge Monitoring, 67 Fed. Reg. 79845 
(December 31, 2002). These regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 360), and thus 
the SIMA-I system, became effective as of February 1, 2003. The 
regulations specified that the system was to include ``products from 
excluded countries and those products subject to product-specific 
exclusions.'' Id. at 79848.
    \6\ Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003; To Provide for the 
Termination of Action Taken With Regard to Imports of Certain Steel 
Products, 68 Fed. Reg. 68483 (December 8, 2003).
    \7\ Id. at 68484. The Department subsequently confirmed that 
``[t]he duration of the licensing program is not affected by the early 
termination of'' the safeguard measures. Notice of Continuation of 
Steel Import Licensing and Surge Monitoring program, 68 Fed. Reg. 68594 
(December 9, 2003).
    \8\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-5.html 
(last accessed March 18, 2005).
    \9\ Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 Fed. Reg. 12133 
(March 11, 2005) (Interim Final Rule).
    \10\ Interim Final Rule at 12133-34.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 

                                              Neville Peterson, LLP
                                           New York, New York 10004
                                                    August 30, 2005
Hon. Clay Shaw, Chairman,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman,

    These comments are submitted on behalf of Ergodyne, Inc., of 1410 
Energy Park Drive, St. Paul Minnesota 55114, with respect to H.R. 1115, 
a bill which would ``clarify'' tariff rates for certain imported 
``mechanics' gloves''.
    For the reasons set forth below, Ergodyne submits that H.R. 1115, 
if enacted in its current form, would create substantial inequities in 
the United States market for certain types of work gloves. While the 
bill purports to describe certain gloves ``specially designed for the 
use of professional auto racing teams and general automotive 
mechanics'', it in fact describes a class of industrial protection 
gloves which are widely used by workers other than auto mechanics. To 
avoid creating an inequity in the market for these industrial 
protection gloves, Ergodyne submits that H.R. 1115 should be modified 
to cover all gloves having the design characteristics described 
therein, regardless of whether ``designed for use by'' auto racing or 
general automotive mechanics.
    In the alternative, if H.R. 1115 is limited to gloves for 
professional and auto racing teams and automotive mechanics, it should 
be enacted as an ``actual use'' tariff classification provision.
Interest of Commenter
    Ergodyne, Inc. is a major importer and wholesaler of a wide range 
of ergonomic and industrial protection products, including work gloves. 
These products are widely sold in the United States through industrial 
protection gear catalogues. Ergodyne imports and sells protective work 
gloves which are identical in all physical respects to the gloves 
described in H.R. 1115. However, the vast majority of these gloves are 
not sold to professional auto racing teams or to auto mechanics, but to 
companies employing workers who require protection from vibration, 
shock, and other stresses which are brought to bear on workers' hands 
during a variety of industrial processes.
    H.R. 1115 would create a new Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
subheading 6216.00.45 covering certain ``Mechanics' gloves'', other 
than knit. The bill would also create a new Additional U.S. Note to HTS 
Chapter 64, which would describe the gloves covered by the new tariff 
provision as follows:
    For the purposes of subheading 6216.00.45, the term ``mechanics' 
gloves'' means gloves especially designed for the use of professional 
auto racing teams and general automotive mechanics, with the following: 
synthetic leather palms and fingers; fourchettes of synthetic leather, 
nylon, or elastomeric yarn; backs comprising either one layer of 
knitted elastomeric fabric off heading 5407, the center layer of foam, 
and the inner layer of tricot of heading 5903, whether or not including 
a thermoplastic rubber logo or pad on the back; and elastic wrist 
straps with molded thermoplastic rubber hook-and-loop enclosures.
    The construction described in the proposed Additional U.S. Note is 
a common construction for a class of well-designed work gloves. While 
some gloves with these characteristics are used by auto mechanics, most 
such gloves are used by workers other than auto mechanics, for 
protection in the workplace.
    Ergodyne notes that there is nothing about the design and 
construction of these gloves which may be said to ``especially design'' 
them for the use of professional auto racing teams or auto mechanics. 
The gloves merely have the characteristics (durable palms and fingers, 
fourchettes, multilayer padded backs) typical for work gloves used by 
persons to protect their hands from friction stresses and other 
workplace hazards. While they might be used by auto mechanics, they are 
also more commonly used by factory and warehouse workers, machinists, 
carpenters, and a wide range of other industrial workers.
1. Enacting H.R. 1115 in its Present Form Will Cause Market Inequities 
        and Present Customs and Border Protection With Tariff 
        Classification Problems
    Ergodyne submits that enactment of H.R. 1115 in its present form 
would result in significant market inequities for sellers and 
purchasers of work gloves. It would also engender substantial problems 
in the tariff classification of these types of gloves, undoing several 
recent Customs ruling which restored classification equity for these 
products.
    The tariff classification of so-called ``mechanics' gloves'' 
imported and sold in the United States has generated substantial 
controversy in recent years.
    Previously, Customs classified certain of the gloves described in 
H.R. 1115 as being ``specially designed for use in sports'', and 
subject to low rates of duty. This classification was not based on any 
physical characteristics of the gloves themselves, but rather on the 
representation of some United States importers and distributors (who 
held NASCAR and similar racing association licenses) that the gloves 
were suitable for use by auto racing teams or racing mechanics.\1\ 
Firms such as Ergodyne, which imported identical gloves (often made in 
the same factories) for sale in the industrial protection sector of the 
work glove marketplace were assessed with the regular, much-higher 
tariff rates applicable to man-made fiber gloves. general industrial 
protection functions were classified as ordinary gloves, subject to 
higher tariff rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., New York Customs Rulings C81172 of November 17, 1997 
and D83272 of October 28, 1998 (issued to Simpson Fire Suit Inc.); New 
York Customs Ruling G80387 of August 28, 2000 (issued to Ringers Gloves 
Company); New York Customs Ruling B85790 of June 5, 1997 (issued to 
Midwest Air Technologies, Inc.); New York Customs Ruling A86298 of 
August 8, 1996 (unknown importer); Customs Headquarters Ruling 965692 
of September 18, 2002 (issued to Anza Sport Group Inc. d/b/a Mechanix 
Wear, Inc.).
    \2\ See, e.g., Customs Headquarters Ruling 965157 of May 14, 2002; 
New York Customs Ruling G87681 of May 14, 2002 (issued to Ergodyne, 
Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This disparity in tariff classification seriously injured Ergodyne 
and similarly-situated firms which sell substantially identically-
constructed gloves in the industrial protection market, for the vast 
majority of gloves imported as being ``specially designed for use in 
sports'' were in fact sold in the industrial protection market, in 
direct competition with Ergodyne's gloves. In fact, most of the 
companies whose gloves were classified under the provisions for sport 
gloves sold those gloves in industrial protection catalogues.
    Whether the gloves in question were ``specially designed for use in 
sports'' was unclear. Furthermore, to the extent these gloves were to 
be classified according to use, the relevant use is the principal use 
of the ``class or kind'' of merchandise to which the gloves belonged, 
rather than the actual or intended use of particular gloves. In this 
regard, all of the subject gloves were of the same ``class or kind'', 
Ergodyne argued, and should be classified the same way.
    Customs and Border Protection finally resolved the dispute, and 
restored equity and uniformity to the classification of these types of 
gloves, by revoking or modifying the previous rulings which had 
classified these gloves as being ``specially designed for use in 
sports''.\3\ These modifications and revocations were effected 
following publication of notice in the Customs Bulletin and the 
solicitation of public comment pursuant to Section 625 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1625).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Customs Headquarters Ruling 966647 of September 10, 2003 
(revoking rulings previously issued to Simpson Fire Suit Inc.); Customs 
Headquarters Ruling 966648 of September 10, 2003 (revoking ruling 
issued to Ringers Gloves Company); Customs Headquarters Ruling 966432 
of September 10, 2003 (revoking ruling issued to Midwest Air 
Technologies); Customs Headquarters Ruling 966431 of September 10, 2003 
(revoking ruling issued to unidentified importer); Customs Headquarters 
Ruling 966248 of September 10, 2003 (revoking ruling issued to Anza 
Sport Group Inc. d/b/a Mechanix Wear, Inc.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1115, in its present form, would reintroduce the inequities 
and the classification confusion which Customs had eliminated in 2003. 
To the extent that classification of gloves under proposed HTS 
subheading 6216.00.45 would be predicated not only on the objective 
design and construction attributes of the gloves, but also their 
special `` design[] for the use of professional auto racing teams and 
general automotive mechanics'', the bill would again appear to inject 
use as a criterion for classification. To the extent the intended 
criterion for classification is ``design for use'', there is nothing in 
the construction of the gloves described in the bill which dedicates 
them particularly to use by auto racing teams or general automotive 
mechanics, as opposed to other kinds of workers.
    Furthermore, if the classification of goods as ``mechanics'' gloves 
is determined by use, the relevant use is not the use to which 
particular imported gloves are put, but the principal use of the 
``class or kind'' of goods to which the imported gloves belong. Most 
gloves having the construction identified in the bill are not used by 
auto mechanics or racing teams, but in general industrial operations. 
If ``principal use'' is the relevant classification criterion, it is 
possible that the proposed subheading 6216.00.45 provision for 
``Mechanics' gloves'' might never be used.
    In its current form, H.R. 1115 is flawed, and would create both 
market inequities and difficulties in Customs administration. It should 
not be enacted in its current form.
2. Congress Should Enact a Duty Reduction for the Subject Gloves Based 
        Solely Upon Their Construction
    Ergodyne does not oppose a duty reduction for gloves if it covers 
all gloves having the construction described in H.R. 1115, regardless 
of intended use.
    In this regard, we note that a reduction in duties for gloves of 
this construction would help reduce prices in the United States, and 
encourage more employers to purchase these types of gloves for their 
workers' protection. In addition, there are no known domestic producers 
of like or competitive gloves, so the enactment of a duty reduction 
would not affect any United States manufacturing or labor interests. 
The current high tariff applied to these gloves serves no industrial 
protection function, and merely places a high cost on achieving safety 
in the workplace.
    Ergodyne believes that H.R. 1115 would be acceptable, and should be 
enacted, if the term ``Mechanics' gloves'' were defined according to 
the construction of the gloves alone, rather than with reference to 
``use'' or ``design for use''. We recommend that H.R. 1115 be amended, 
so that the proposed Additional U.S. Note to Chapter 62 of the HTS 
would read as follows:
    For the purposes of subheading 6216.00.45, the term ``mechanics' 
gloves'' means gloves having the following characteristics: synthetic 
leather palms and fingers; fourchettes of synthetic leather, nylon, or 
elastomeric yarn; backs comprising either one layer of knitted 
elastomeric fabric of heading 5407, the center layer of foam, and the 
inner layer of tricot of heading 5903, whether or not including a 
thermoplastic rubber logo or pad on the back; and elastic wrist straps 
with molded thermoplastic rubber hook-and-loop enclosures.
    As revised, the duty reduction provision would cover a narrow, 
carefully-limited class of work gloves. While the proposed amendment 
might expand the scope of proposed HTS subheading 6216.00.45, it should 
not result in a significantly larger revenue loss.
    The proposed revision would also make it simpler for Customs and 
Border Protection to administer the tariff provision, and would prevent 
classification disputes.
3. In the Alternative, H.R. 1115 Should be Enacted as a ``Actual Use'' 
        Tariff Provision
    In the event that Congress elects to enact a duty reduction measure 
which is limited to gloves of a certain construction used in auto 
racing and for general automobile mechanics, the bill should be amended 
so as to provide for tariff classification by ``actual use''. Where 
goods are classified by ``actual use'', importers are required to 
provide Customs with evidence, within three years after importation, 
that the goods were actually used for the purposes stated in the tariff 
item, and are entitled to the lower rates of duty specified therein.
    Limiting the bill in this way would prevent the re-emergence of 
competitive inequities in the United States market for industrial 
protection work gloves. As noted supra, these inequities plagued 
suppliers of such work gloves, such as Ergodyne, until Customs finally 
harmonized and made uniform the classification of these gloves in 2003.
Conclusion
    Ergodyne's primary concern is to ensure that the enactment of H.R. 
1115 does not recreate a competitive imbalance in the United States 
market for industrial protection work gloves. To that end, while 
Ergodyne believes that the bill is flawed in its current form, the 
company would support the enactment of a bill which defines the term 
``mechanics' gloves'' by construction rather than use, and reduces 
tariffs for all such gloves. Ergodyne believes that such a reduction 
would greatly benefit the safety and health of United States workers, 
by making protective gloves more affordable to them and their 
employers.
    In the alternative, if the measure is to limited to imported gloves 
for professional racing teams and auto mechanics, the bill should 
provide for classification of such goods by actual use, in order to 
avoid re-introducing market inequities and creating difficulties in the 
administration of this tariff provision.
    Ergodyne stands ready to furnish any additional information or 
assistance which the Subcommittee may require regarding this measure.
                                                   John M. Peterson
                                          Counsel to Ergodyne, Inc.

                                 

                                            A.C. Houston Lumber Co.
                                      North Las Vegas, Nevada 89081
                                                    August 30, 2005
Dear Congressman Shaw:

    I am writing in support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd 
Amendment.''
    My company produces structural building components--metal-plate 
connected wood trusses, wall panels, and open-web floor joists--that 
are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel 
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes 
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings. We have locations in California, 
Nevada, New Mexico Colorado, and Idaho. Our annual sales are $220 
million and we employ over 900 people, with some of our employees in 
California belonging to labor unions.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment directly harm my company's competitiveness 
and profitability. Please allow me to offer the following observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    Consequently, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged additional 
U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to reap the 
benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. However, since the Byrd Amendment took 
effect, the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 
2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU, and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish, and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                                  Michael M. Murray
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                                   Accent Furniture
                                   Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043
                                                    August 31, 2005
Ways And Means Committee
Subcommittee On Trade

Dear Subcommittee members:

    I am writing to you regarding the Byrd Amendment and ask that the 
Trade Subcommittee consider the needs of distributors and retailers who 
import products, our associates, and our customers. The Byrd Amendment 
was passed without consideration by the appropriate committees of 
Congress and has done unforeseen injury to American companies.
    My companies, which are: The Bedroom Store, Accent Furniture, and 
Boyd Specialty Sleep, employ 200 people across the U.S. (100 in the St. 
Louis area.) I began the company in 1977 and locally my 7 stores have 
grown to be the largest supplier of bedroom products to consumers in 
the St. Louis area and a major distributor to over 3000 stores like The 
Bedroom Store across the country.
    Since June 18, 2004, when anti-dumping duties on bedroom furniture 
were announced, my bedroom furniture sales have been down in excess of 
30% versus the prior year. The anti-dumping duties have limited my 
customers previously open access to quality, affordable bedroom 
furniture and have required me to spend thousands of dollars finding 
and qualifying new sources of furniture.
    I support repeal of the Byrd Amendment because:

      The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on American 
manufacturers who use products subject to antidumping and 
countervailing duties. American companies are the ones that pay these 
duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, they have these duty 
payments transferred to their U.S. competitors. Therefore, part of an 
industry is taxed to subsidize another part of that industry.
      The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few 
companies that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually 
undermines it. Most American manufacturers do not benefit from the Byrd 
Amendment. More than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to 
only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to 
only 44 companies.
      The Byrd Amendment does not restrict the recipients' use 
of Byrd Amendment money.
      Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on 
``qualified expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by 
Customs or any government agency.
      The Byrd Amendment annually funnels money collected from 
the imposition of anti-dumping duties from government coffers to 
companies that petition for those duties. Such funneling has totaled 
more than $1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
      U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions 
knowing full well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S. 
companies in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to 
include more products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including 
products not even made in the U.S. Because the duties on the imported 
products are funneled to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment 
creates a disincentive to produce the product subject to the duty in 
the U.S.
      We rely on open trade for our export sales and our 
purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment makes importing raw materials 
more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and uncertainty.
      This law was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies.
      The antidumping and countervailing duty laws are more 
arbitrary, the duties are higher and orders are harder to revoke or 
change as a result of the Byrd Amendment.
      This harms consuming industries, but they have no ability 
to participate meaningfully in these cases. Repeal of the Byrd 
Amendment is an essential step in allowing consuming industries an 
opportunity to protect their interests as a matter of fundamental 
fairness.
      We export products that are actually or potentially 
subject to retaliation: our major trading partners will take action 
against U.S. exports as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal 
this WTO-illegal measure.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you would like any 
additional input on how the Byrd Amendment has harmed my company and 
customers. Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Dennis Boyd
                                                          President

                                 

                                               AK Steel Corporation
                                             Middletown, Ohio 45043
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    We note your advisory dated July 25, 2005 requesting written 
comment on technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and Miscellaneous 
Duty Suspension bills. Among the bills listed in the release is H.R. 
1121, a bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000, and the 
related measure, H.R. 2473. AK Steel strongly opposes both of these 
measures. We believe the consideration of these measures at this time 
would seriously undermine the direction of U.S. trade policy as 
established by the Administration and by Congress itself.
    Headquartered in Middletown, Ohio, AK Steel produces flat-rolled 
carbon, stainless and electrical steel products, as well as carbon and 
stainless tubular steel products for automotive, appliance, 
construction, and manufacturing markets. We have manufacturing 
facilities in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky which employ a total 
of about 8,000 men and women. In March of this year we were named one 
of America's ``most admired companies'' in a survey conducted by 
Fortune magazine that rated companies on eight criteria, including 
quality of management, innovation, and quality of products and 
services.
    The antidumping and subsidies laws were negotiated, written and 
endorsed by the world's trading nations over 50 years ago. They are 
well-recognized, well-established remedies for unfair trade that are 
only available when a domestic industry conclusively proves that it has 
been injured by clearly demonstrated dumping.
    We firmly believe that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
has been and continues to be an appropriate, effective, and legal 
response when foreign competitors engage in dumping or benefit from 
unfair subsidies. We strongly support the value of this measure that 
has been an effective tool in preserving the manufacturing base of this 
country in critical industries, and preventing the elimination of U.S. 
jobs.
    We particularly oppose any legislative activity to repeal the CDSOA 
at this time. Congress itself recognized that the appropriate forum for 
determining the future of CDSOA payments is in international trade 
discussions. In January 2004, Congress, in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, directed the Administration to conduct negotiations 
within the World Trade Organization on the question of the rights of 
WTO members to distribute monies collected from antidumping and 
countervailing duties.'' The Administration has, in the current Doha 
Round, proposed that the relevant WTO agreements be revised to clarify 
that anti-dumping and countervailing duty payments may be distributed 
as the member country deems appropriate.
    Repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act would be 
detrimental to the critical manufacturing sector of the economy, and 
would undermine internationally recognized principles of trade policy. 
Given Congress's statement in the 2004 appropriations measure, and the 
on-going consideration of these issues through the WTO, it would be 
particularly ill-advised to consider repeal of the legislation at this 
time. For these reasons, we strongly urge the committee to delete H.R. 
1121, and the related measure, H.R. 2473, from the list of measures to 
be considered by the committee at this time.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                 James L. Wainscott
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

                                                              Alcoa
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Alcoa Inc., headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and operating 
in over 400 locations in 43 countries, supports H.R. 1121, legislation 
to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), 
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. Alcoa also supports the inclusion 
of H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Alcoa is the world's largest aluminum producer. Aluminum is in turn 
one of the most versatile products made in the modern world; it is a 
key commodity and its alloys are used in production of industrial 
products, aircraft, missiles and other defense apparatus, automobiles 
and auto parts, as well as numerous products used in and around homes 
and offices.
    Alcoa is a proponent of a fair U.S. trade policy--first and 
foremost, this must be based on adherence to international rules 
governing the regulation of trade. The Byrd Amendment violates these 
rules and the U.S. is clearly obligated to bring its laws into 
conformity with the requirements we agreed to with our trading 
partners.
    However, this is not the only reason for repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. It has also generated unintended adverse consequences for 
American industry, including Alcoa.
    The Byrd Amendment provides a ``double hit'' on importers and 
consumers of products subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. 
That is, duties are collected by the government and then paid over to 
U.S. companies, including competitors of foreign producers and U.S. 
companies that did not support petitions when they were brought. It 
encourages U.S. producers to file cases they might not otherwise 
support, and to include
    additional products within those cases to maximize payments, even 
if the producers do not even make all the products subject to the 
cases. The Amendment also encourages antidumping and countervailing 
duty orders to be continued after the five-year ``sunset'' review 
period.
    In addition, the Byrd Amendment provides money for recipients with 
no strings attached. There is no indication that these funds have 
strengthened the companies that receive them in their international 
competitiveness. Without this assurance, the receipt of Byrd Amendment 
money may serve no public purpose. Moreover, the payment process is not 
effectively audited. More than $1 billion has been paid to date.
    It also appears that the Byrd Amendment has fomented destructive 
trade disputes with close allies like Canada.
    Finally, of course, repeal of the Byrd Amendment is required by 
international trade rules. As a global company, Alcoa sees the 
importance of trade liberalizing agreements. U.S. leadership on trade 
issues is not possible without the adhering to the fundamental rules of 
trade, including complying with WTO decisions.
    Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an essential step in allowing 
consuming industries an opportunity to protect their interests and is a 
matter of fundamental fairness.
                                                   Russell C. Wisor
                                 Vice President, Government Affairs

                                 

   Statement of Jon D. Walton, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, 
                        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (``ATI'') submits these 
comments in strong opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill (``MTB''), a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``the Byrd Amendment''), and in 
opposition to H.R. 2473 (also contained in the MTB), which alters the 
calculation of the ``all others'' rate in the antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases and would significantly reduce the amount of 
duties collected and distributed under CDSOA. We believe that 
continuation of the Byrd Amendment in its current form is essential to 
preserving the remedial effect of the U.S. antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws.
    ATI is one of the largest and most diversified specialty materials 
producers in the world with revenues of approximately $2.7 billion in 
2004. ATI has approximately 9,000 full-time employees world-wide who 
use innovative technologies to offer growing global markets a wide 
range of specialty materials solutions. ATI's products include nickel-
based alloys and superalloys, titanium and titanium alloys, stainless 
and specialty steels, zirconium, hafnium, and niobium, tungsten 
materials, silicon and tool steels, and forgings and castings.
    ATI Allegheny Ludlum, an Allegheny Technologies company, is a world 
leader in the production and marketing of sheet, plate, and strip 
specialty materials including stainless steel, nickel-based alloys, 
titanium, and titanium-based alloys. The company also produces grain-
oriented silicon electrical steel products, and tool steel plate. 
Allegheny Ludlum has approximately 3,700 full-time employees 
principally located in the United States.
    Allegheny Ludlum has received CDSOA disbursements since the 
inception of the program in 2001. In 2004, Allegheny Ludlum received 
CDSOA disbursements of approximately $2.5 million. These disbursements 
have had a positive effect on Allegheny Ludlum's net income, investment 
in property, plant and equipment, research and development and 
employment, which, in turn, have had a positive effect on the company's 
ability to compete.
    We understand that H.R. 1121 is intended to conform U.S. law to the 
January 16, 2003 decision of the WTO Appellate Body which found the 
CDSOA to be a nonpermissible ``specific action against'' dumping or 
subsidization. We believe that the Appellate Body's ruling is 
erroneous. Nothing in the WTO agreements addresses the ways that WTO 
members may use antidumping and countervailing duties once they have 
been paid.
    The CDSOA does not impose sanctions against dumping or 
subsidization any greater than those permitted under the WTO 
agreements; the Byrd Amendment did not raise the amount of antidumping 
and countervailing duties permissible under U.S. law and the WTO 
agreements. It simply applies the duties collected in a manner designed 
to remedy the ongoing injury caused by the continuation of unfair trade 
practices.
    ATI expects that Congress will actively support manufacturing jobs 
in the United States by opposing repeal of CDSOA and by supporting the 
U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by 
Congress. We note that Congress has called for our trade negotiators in 
the ongoing Doha Round to push for revision of the WTO agreements so 
that CDSOA and similar programs relating to the use by individual 
countries of the antidumping and countervailing duties they collect 
will be expressly accepted as consistent with WTO. We believe that this 
approach would improve the effectiveness throughout the world of long-
accepted disciplines aimed at discouraging dumping and subsidization of 
exports. The United States and the world trading system would be better 
for it.
    For these reasons, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated respectfully 
urges the Committee to report H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 unfavorably.

                                 

                                                      Alperts, Inc.
                                                  Seekonk, MA 02771
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Alperts, Inc., I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this legislation's 
inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill. Headquartered in Seekonk, 
MA, Alperts has 165 employees with 2005 sales in excess of $42 million.
    In 2003 a group of domestic furniture manufacturers worked to 
restrict consumer access to affordable high quality wooden bedroom 
furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition against furniture from 
China with the Commerce Department and the International Trade 
Commission. We believe that these petitioners were primarily motivated 
by the prospects of Byrd Amendment funds.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden 
bedroom furniture, Alperts not only must pay the duties but also see 
the monies in the future transferred to selected domestic manufacturers 
that we compete directly against! Dumping duties by their nature are 
supposed to increase the costs of goods, thereby making ``unfair'' 
imports ``fair.'' Transferring the duties back to the U.S. producers 
causes a double benefit to those companies who filed the petition. Not 
only do they raise the price of goods to U.S. consumers, but the U.S. 
producers then collect huge payments from the government, with no 
requirements that they do anything with this money.
    The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than 
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to nine companies, and 
about 80 percent to only 44 companies nationwide.
    Again, the furniture manufacturers who filed the trade petition 
will not be required to use the Byrd money they receive for job 
retraining or to improve their competitiveness. Instead, these 
companies can sit back and receive a government handout on every wood 
bedroom product imported into this country from China, and it goes 
right into their bottom-line. Bombay's millions of customers across 
America depend on having access to quality furniture for their homes at 
a reasonable price. We ask that the Trade Subcommittee consider the 
needs of retailers who import products, our employees, and our 
customers. The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies.
    As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R. 
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill and once again applaud you for 
your leadership on this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Hershel L. Alpert
                                                          President

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments: AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                            American Chamber of Commerce in Germany
                                                    Berlin, Germany
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    The American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham Germany) 
welcomes the opportunity to comment on, and supports the inclusion into 
a miscellaneous trade legislation of the bill H.R. 1121 repealing 
Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Section 754 was enacted by the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 (CDSOA or ``Byrd Amendment''). This act is at the heart of 
a major dispute in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) opposing the 
United States and its main trading partners, including Germany. Its 
repeal would remove a serious trade irritant that prejudices the United 
States' trade relations and its credibility as a reliable partner in 
the WTO.
The CDSOA is a breach of the letter and spirit of the WTO rules
    The enactment of the CDSOA raised immediate and widespread concerns 
not only in the European Union but in the whole WTO membership. 11 
members (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EU, India, Indonesia, 
Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand) brought a complaint under the 
dispute settlement proceeding and were supported by 5 other members 
(Argentina, Costa Rica, Hong Kong (China), Israel, Norway). It was the 
first time in the history of the Organisation that so many members 
joined forces to challenge a measure taken by another member.
    There was no doubt that the CDSOA was contrary to the basic 
obligation to limit action against dumping or subsidisation to the 
remedies specifically available under the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 
agreements (i.e. duties on imports of the dumped or subsidised goods, 
undertakings on minimum import prices or, in the case of a subsidy, 
multilaterally sanctioned countermeasures). The CDSOA distributes the 
collected anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to the companies that 
brought or supported those trade remedy cases. Thereby, the CDSOA 
imposes a second hit on dumped or subsidised products: domestic 
producers are, first, protected by anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties 
and, second they receive subsidies paid from these duties at the 
expense of their competitors. This overcompensates the dumping or 
subsidisation and upsets the fair competition previously restored by 
the imposition of duties to the detriment of exporters, U.S. importers, 
U.S. consuming industries and U.S. producers that are not eligible to 
the CDSOA payments. The Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO fully 
confirmed this legal assessment in a widely expected decision in 
January 2003.
The limitation of the remedies available against dumping or 
        subsidisation is a cornerstone obligation of the WTO and must 
        remain
    AmCham Germany is aware of requests to negotiate rules in the WTO 
that would ``legalize'' the CDSOA and wishes to express its opposition 
to such negotiations.
    Such a change of the WTO rule-book would be fundamentally misguided 
and against the interests of all WTO members including of the United 
States. The limitation of the remedies available is one of the 
obligations that maintain the delicate balance between trade 
liberalisation and a legitimate protection of national industries 
against unfair competition.
    The inevitable consequence of authorizing multilaterally the 
disbursement of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to subsidize 
the national competitors of the exporters would be a proliferation of 
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duty actions, which would have a major 
negative impact on world trade, including on U.S. exports.
    AmCham Germany wishes to draw the attention of the Committee to 
statistics published by the WTO on the anti-dumping activity over the 
last 10 years (1995-2004).\1\ They show that the United States has been 
over that period the third most targeted WTO member in terms of 
initiation of anti-dumping investigations and the fourth most targeted 
member in terms of anti-dumping measures imposed. A legalization of a 
redistribution mechanism such as the CDSOA would therefore not be in 
the interest of the U.S. producers as they would be hit next in their 
export markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Available on the WTO website at: http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The repeal of the CDSOA does not affect the ability of the United 
        States to protect its industry from unfair competition
    The CDSOA is an ``added piece'' to the United States' system of 
protection against dumping or subsidisation. Repealing it would leave 
this system unaffected and would therefore not affect the United 
States' ability to provide to its companies and workers a legitimate 
protection against unfair competition. The imposition of anti-dumping 
and anti-subsidy duties (or other remedies specifically authorised by 
the relevant WTO agreements) ensures the required protection.
    The CDSOA was also presented as the adequate way to respond to 
continued dumping and subsidisation which prevents market prices from 
returning to fair levels and frustrates the remedial purpose of the 
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties. It may happen that dumping or 
subsidisation increases over time and that the duty initially imposed 
becomes insufficient to neutralise it but other adequate legal 
recourses are and will continue to be available. Thus, WTO rules allow 
for the review of the level of the duty and the retroactive application 
of the revised duty rate, thereby cancelling out any unfair competitive 
advantage that could result from increasing the level of dumping or 
subsidisation.
    These rules are implemented in U.S. legislation by Section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 which allows United States' companies to 
require every year a review of the duty, which result will be applied 
retroactively.
Ignoring the DSB ruling and recommendation fundamentally affects the 
        United States' interests
    The United States had 11 months (until 27 December 2003) to bring 
its legislation into conformity with the WTO rules, but the deadline 
expired without any concrete signs of forthcoming compliance with the 
WTO ruling. The European Union subsequently requested the authorisation 
to retaliate against the United States. Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, 
Japan, Korea and Mexico acted likewise.
    The European Union started the application of retaliatory measures 
on 1 May 2005 in the form of a 15% additional import duty on a range of 
U.S. products including paper and textile products, machinery and sweet 
corn. In accordance with the arbitration award, the level of 
retaliation will be revised annually and new products may then become 
subject to retaliation. Canada has also applied a 15% additional import 
duty on live swine, tobacco, oysters, specialty fish originating in the 
United States since 1 May 2005. Japan recently announced that it would 
apply a 15% additional duty on certain U.S. products as from 1 
September 2005 and Mexico has just published a decree applying 
retaliatory measures on certain U.S. products as from 18 August. The 
other complainants are taking preparatory steps to exercise their 
retaliation rights in the WTO. Domestic requirements impose different 
calendars, but all may apply retaliation at any time they deem 
appropriate as all required steps in the WTO have now been completed.
    Again, this is the first time in the history of the WTO that so 
many members are authorised to impose retaliatory measures. More 
tellingly, these eight members represent the major trading partners of 
the United States with 71% of total U.S. exports and 64% of total U.S. 
imports.
    By contrast, the legislation at the root of this dispute only 
benefits a handful of companies. Two companies have received more than 
one third of the money distributed so far (i.e. more than U.S. $ 366 
million out of the roughly U.S. $ 1 billion disbursed in the first four 
distributions) and every year half of the payments went to a very 
limited number of companies (4 in 2001, 3 in 2002, 2 in 2003 and 9 in 
2004).
    As a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) economic analysis \2\ shows, 
the CDSOA creates incentives to U.S.-producers to file complaints in 
order to receive CDSOA payments. It also results in inefficiencies in 
production, makes retaliation by trading partners more likely, 
discourages the settlement of cases, and leads to increased transaction 
costs. Hence, the ``Byrd Amendment'' is detrimental to the overall 
economic welfare of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Available on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
51xx/doc5130/03-02-ThomasLetter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On a systemic point of view, the dispute settlement system is a 
fundamental pillar of the WTO. It provides security and predictability 
to the multilateral trading system. Its credibility depends on its 
strict observance by the members. The failure of the United States, one 
of the world's leading trading nations, to comply fully in timely 
manner with its WTO obligations is damaging to the credibility and 
effective functioning of the rule-based trading system. Undermining WTO 
disciplines harms the interests of all members, including those of the 
United States.
    AmCham Germany continuously strives to promote the further 
liberalization of trade and therefore supports the dispute settlement 
process of and decisions made by the WTO. In order to strengthen the 
transatlantic relationship, AmCham Germany encourages both the U.S. and 
EU to jointly work on solving this dispute in a manner, that does not 
harm businesses on either side of the Atlantic.
    Our members, both American and German companies, strongly rely on 
open trade for their business. Therefore, the Byrd Amendment 
constitutes harm for our membership base. Not only is it detrimental to 
multinational, transatlantic business, but also--first and foremost--to 
U.S. business interests: American business relies upon the multilateral 
trading system in the context of the WTO and a global exchange of goods 
without countervailing duties. Further, resulting from the lack of fair 
competition, American consumers are burdened with higher prices.
    Thus, AmCham Germany trusts that the Committee will appreciate the 
utmost importance for the United States to abide by its WTO obligations 
and repeal the CDSOA without further delay.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Dr. Dierk Muller
                                                    General Manager
                                 ______
                                 
American Chamber of Commerce in Germany e.V.
    The American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham) is a private, 
non-profit organization. With over 3,000 members, it is the largest 
bilateral economic organization in Europe and represents the largest 
group of foreign investors in Germany. AmCham Germany's goals include 
strengthening German-American economic relations and promoting Germany 
as an investment location. The chamber also serves as a link to 
investors in the United States.

                                 

           Statement of The American Iron and Steel Institute
    In response to the request for written comments with respect to 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals,\1\ the American Iron and Steel Institute 
(``AISI'') is pleased to provide the following comments regarding 
several of the bills listed in the Subcommittee's advisory (and 
proposed for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade package). As described 
below, these proposals are highly controversial, raise a number of 
substantive concerns and are not suitable for inclusion in a 
miscellaneous tariff bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Advisory from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee 
on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, requesting comments on 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension bills (July 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1121 (Repeal of ``Byrd Amendment'')
    One of the measures listed in the Subcommittee's advisory for 
potential inclusion in the miscellaneous tariff bill is H.R. 1121, 
which would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 
(``CDSOA''), often referred to as the ``Byrd Amendment'' (providing for 
the distribution of unfair trade duties to companies and workers 
injured by unfair foreign practices). H.R. 1121 is not only highly 
controversial, but is unnecessary given that Congress has clearly 
expressed the view that the ongoing dispute relating to the Byrd 
Amendment should be resolved in international negotiations. Inclusion 
of this measure in the miscellaneous tariff package would clearly give 
rise to substantial opposition to the overall bill, and is certainly 
not appropriate given the historic practice of limiting this bill to 
non-controversial items. Several points are important in this regard.
    First, the proposal to repeal the Byrd Amendment is apparently 
intended to implement the WTO Appellate Body's decision in United 
States--Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The WTO 
decision in this case, however, has been roundly criticized, including 
by the Bush Administration, as an example of judicial overreaching and 
the creation of obligations not found in the applicable WTO agreements. 
While the WTO Appellate Body ruled that lawfully collected antidumping 
and countervailing duties may not be distributed to injured domestic 
producers, the fact is that the negotiators of the relevant WTO 
agreements never even considered, much less undertook, any restrictions 
on how WTO Members may spend lawfully collected duties. In finding 
otherwise, the Appellate Body simply invented obligations that were not 
agreed to by U.S. negotiators or approved by Congress.
    Second, as Congress has recognized, this matter can and should be 
resolved through another, more appropriate avenue--the ongoing Doha 
Round of WTO negotiations. In this regard, the WTO's ruling in the Byrd 
case prompted 70 Senators to send a letter to President Bush in 
February 2003 urging him to seek, through trade negotiations, express 
recognition of the existing right of WTO Members to distribute monies 
lawfully collected from antidumping and countervailing duties as they 
saw fit. Moreover, Congress included in its Fiscal Year 2004 omnibus 
appropriations bill a provision directing the Bush Administration to 
immediately initiate WTO negotiations to recognize this right. The Bush 
Administration has now put this issue on the table of the Doha Round 
negotiations. This effort at a negotiated fix for the Appellate Body's 
decision should be given an opportunity to succeed--rather than rushing 
to repeal a critical U.S. law in the face of a flawed WTO dispute 
settlement decision.
    The Byrd Amendment has served a critical role in allowing U.S. 
industries devastated by unfair trade, including the steel industry, to 
make necessary investments and regain their competitive footing. It is 
important to emphasize that Byrd Amendment funds are made available 
only where, and to the extent, unfair trade continues after antidumping 
or countervailing duty orders have been put in place. When dumping and 
subsidization do not cease even in the face of such orders, it is 
essential that Byrd Amendment funds be provided to the affected 
domestic producers that are injured by such market-distorting behavior. 
Repealing the Byrd Amendment would deliver a major blow to U.S. 
manufacturers--along with agricultural and fishery industries--at a 
time when they face growing challenges from unfair trade.
    In short, including H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous tariff package 
would be unwise, unnecessary and highly controversial. Rather than 
pursuing such flawed legislation, the United States should continue to 
seek a negotiated solution for this issue at the WTO.
H.R. 2473 (Changes to Calculation of ``All Others'' Rate)
    The Subcommittee's advisory also lists H.R. 2473 among the 
potential measures for inclusion in a miscellaneous tariff bill. As 
with proposals to repeal the Byrd Amendment, this measure would be 
highly controversial and has no place in the legislation under 
consideration.
    H.R. 2473 includes language amending the ``all others'' rate 
provision of the antidumping statute--once again, apparently intended 
to implement an adverse decision of the WTO Appellate Body. In 
particular, in United States--Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan (``Japan Hot-Rolled''), the Appellate 
Body found that antidumping authorities may not calculate an ``all 
others'' antidumping duty rate for non-investigated companies using 
dumping margins that contain any element of ``facts available.'' \2\ 
(The use of so-called ``facts available'' relates to reliance on 
alternative sources of information where a respondent fails to provide 
complete or accurate information in the course of an antidumping 
proceeding). As the Bush Administration recognized when this decision 
was issued, the Appellate Body failed to follow the appropriate 
standard of review in reaching its decision and, as a result, the 
decision was deeply flawed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``All others'' rates are applied to non-investigated companies 
in antidumping cases and are calculated based on the duty rates of 
individually investigated producers. See 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673d(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, the Appellate Body's decision and the proposed amendment to 
the ``all others'' rate provision to implement it would raise a whole 
host of practical concerns about how meaningful ``all others'' rates 
could be calculated and about the administration of the antidumping 
law. Because the use of some degree of facts available is often 
required to calculate accurate trade remedy margins and meaningfully 
implement the statute, the Appellate Body's decision and the proposed 
amendment could make it impossible for the Department of Commerce to 
calculate an ``all others'' rate for non-investigated companies in many 
antidumping cases. This is a complex and controversial issue that 
certainly is not appropriately addressed in a miscellaneous tariff 
bill. As with the Byrd Amendment, the United States has also put this 
issue on the table of the Doha Round negotiations, and this effort 
should be allowed to proceed accordingly.
    We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the 
Subcommittee and hope that they will be taken into account in ongoing 
deliberations regarding the miscellaneous tariff bill.

                                 

                      American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This submission from AMTAC is in response to the July 25, 2005, 
Subcommittee Advisory No. TR-3. which requested comments for the record 
regarding proposed bills concerning ``technical corrections to U.S. 
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.'' A list of 
these miscellaneous trade bills is provided in the Advisory.
    AMTAC represents over 200 domestic manufacturing companies in the 
textile, apparel, furniture, machine tool, steel products, plastics and 
other industry sectors which employ over American 35,000 workers with 
well-paying manufacturing jobs.
    AMTAC opposes H.R. 1121. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section 
754 of the Tariff Act of 1930'' proposed for inclusion in this package. 
This bill is highly controversial and should be deleted from the 
miscellaneous tariff bill, since that vehicle has historically been 
utilized for non-controversial provisions.
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To AMTAC:
    AMTAC's manufacturing members, like all true domestic 
manufacturers, are facing a broad range of predatory trade challenges. 
These U.S. companies are in desperate need of a level playing field, 
and easier access to more effective trade remedies. Instead we have 
seen U.S. trade law amended in recent years to make access to remedies 
more difficult, and the remedies themselves weakened, through measures 
such as H.R. 1121.
    H.R. 1121 will undermine trade remedy laws in the ways detailed 
below.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:
      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan 
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal 
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, the U.S. government to eligible domestic 
industries found to have been injured by dumped or subsidized imports 
distributes duties that are collected as a result of continued dumping 
or subsidization.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our 
foreign competitors do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only when dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO Panel or 
        Appellate Body Decisions
    H.R. 1121 is designed to change U.S. law in response to 
controversial decisions by WTO dispute panels and Appellate Body. A 
non-controversial miscellaneous trade bill is not the appropriate 
vehicle to make such legislative changes to our trade laws.
    H.R. 1121 clearly responds to specific cases where WTO panels and 
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On 
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the 
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach. 
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from 
the text of the WTO Agreements.
    In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to 
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through 
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just 
that in the Doha Round negotiations. H.R. 1121, if legislated, would 
interfere in these efforts.
    In conclusion, H.R. 1121 needs to be expeditiously removed from the 
proposed miscellaneous trade bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Auggie Tantillo
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                       American Wholesale Furniture
                                        Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of my company, American Wholesale Furniture, I would like 
to thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation 
to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), 
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. Our company, which relies on 
imported products, strongly supports this legislation's inclusion in 
the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, American Wholesale Furniture has 
50 employees with 2004 sales at $20 million. We represent and supply 
more than 1,100 midsize retailers in the Midwest states, who employee 
more than 11,000 employees; who all rely on this imported product.
    We support H.R. 1121's inclusion for the following reasons:

      The Byrd Amendment creates a clear incentive to file 
antidumping and countervailing duty cases. U.S. companies in line to 
receive payments have a clear incentive to include more products within 
the scope of cases, including products not even made in the United 
States. Consumers see cases filed because of the promise of Byrd money. 
Other cases include products not even produced here.
      The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. 
More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine 
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 
companies nationwide.
      The prospect of Byrd Amendment money discourages 
settlement of antidumping and countervailing duty cases through 
suspension agreements, and creates an incentive for petitioners to 
broaden the scope of cases, often including products not even made in 
the United States or made in inadequate quantities. As a result, cases 
are broader, last longer and do more damage to consuming industries.
      Those who filed and support trade petitions are not 
required to use the Byrd money they receive for capital investments, 
job creation, worker retraining or improving U.S. competitiveness. 
There are no provisions in the law for any particular use for these 
funds. These companies receive a government handout and may insert the 
funds directly into their bottom lines.
      Byrd Amendment distributions can actually encourage the 
loss of American jobs offshore. Large U.S. Byrd Amendment recipients 
import products from countries that are subject to dumping orders. 
Their Byrd Amendment distributions can offset the dumping duties paid, 
giving the company an exemption from the impact of antidumping laws. 
They, unlike non-Byrd recipients, can import dumped products from their 
affiliates overseas without having to bear the financial burden of 
antidumping duties, since the U.S. government reimburses them.

    Congress must consider repeal of the Byrd Amendment as quickly as 
possible. The inequities suffered by U.S. consuming industries are real 
and growing. Moreover, retaliation by our trading partners is 
increasing. Congress can avoid this looming catastrophe by acting 
promptly to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy for the United States economy and 
the American people. We urge the Committee to incorporate the 
legislation introduced by Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the 
Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to attach it to any viable legislation to 
assure its being enacted without delay. This bill was adopted in the 
dead of night--it should be repealed in broad daylight with the 
greatest possible speed.
    We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the 
Subcommittee.
            Sincerely,
                                                          Jim Mahin
                                       American Wholesale Furniture

                                 

                                               Ampac Packaging, LLC
                                             Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on 
behalf of Ampac Packaging, LLC and its 850 employees to express our 
strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''). The bill is highly controversial. It cannot be fairly 
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
    Ampac Packaging, LLC is a privately owned, diversified 
international flexible packaging company with nine manufacturing 
centers. Ampac's primary products include upscale, domestic and 
overseas retail shopping bags, security bags and envelopes, over 200 
customer and proprietary film blends, stand-up pouches (with a variety 
of closures, fitments and spouts) and high-end performance rollstock.
    Last year, our industry won antidumping cases against polyethylene 
retail carrier bags (``PRCBs'') from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 
With the antidumping orders now in place, we are concerned that some 
exporters are continuing to dump, absorbing the antidumping duties, and 
refusing to raise prices to non-injurious levels. CDSOA both 
discourages continued dumping and also compensates the victims of such 
continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that antidumping 
duties are distributed to the supporters of the original antidumping 
petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA distributions. 
Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    Contrary to false claims of some consumers of unfairly priced 
imports, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000. Our industry filed our antidumping 
petitions because we were being injured by unfairly priced imports, not 
because of CDSOA.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a United States proposal to change the WTO 
Antidumping Agreement to clarify that that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, Congress 
should continue to urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this 
controversial issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
                                                    John Q. Baumann
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

                                           Ash Grove Cement Company
                                        Overland Park, Kansas 66210
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of the Ash Grove Cement Company to express our strong 
opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections 
to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 
is a highly controversial bill that would repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no means be fairly 
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
    Founded in 1882 and based in Overland Park, Kansas, Ash Grove 
operates nine cement plants, 23 cement terminals, one lime plant in the 
U.S. and has numerous subsidiaries in the concrete and aggregate 
industry.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                              Charles T. Sunderland
                                              Chairman of the Board

                                 

                               Association of Food Industries, Inc.
                                          Neptune, New Jersey 07753
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    These comments are submitted on behalf of the Association of Food 
Industries, Inc. (AFI) in support of H.R. 1121, a bill to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1675c, the so-called Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, 
otherwise know as the ``Byrd Amendment.'' AFI is a trade association 
composed of approximately 200 U.S. member-companies that import a wide 
variety of food products from around the world. Several of these 
products are subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties (AD/
CVD), including: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; Certain Pasta 
from Italy; Preserved Mushrooms from Chile; and Individually Quick 
Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile.
    AFI supports H.R. 1121 and repeal of the Byrd Amendment for several 
reasons.

      The Byrd Amendment has been ruled illegal by the World 
Trade Organization. Because of this country's failure to repeal the 
provision today, the WTO has authorized several of our major trading 
partners to institute retaliatory measures against U.S. exports. 
Indeed, Canada, the European Union and Japan have already established 
retaliatory tariffs. Several other major trading partners--including 
Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico and South Korea have gained authorization 
from the WTO to impose retaliatory duties of their own.

    Obviously, it is highly unjust for certain select domestic 
producers to reap the benefits of Byrd Amendment payouts, while a much 
larger group of U.S. exporters--most of whom have not received a dime 
of ``Byrd money''--are laden with punitive tariffs.
    As the largest and most influential member of the WTO, the United 
States has an inherent obligation to abide by--not ignore--WTO rulings, 
even when those rulings may displease certain private sectors of our 
economy or interests within the legislative branch. If not, we can not 
realistically expect our trading partners around the globe to respect 
or adhere to WTO rulings that favor the position of the United States.
    There should be no mistake: when we thumb our nose at the rules-
based international trading system that this country is primarily 
responsible for establishing in the first place, we indelibly stain our 
claim to moral leadership in the global economy. This is not a proud 
position to take, especially in these precipitous times.

      The Byrd Amendment is unfairly punitive as to U.S. 
importers. These companies must operate under the weight of 
antidumping/countervailing duty measures regarding their trade in food 
products covered by such orders. While AFI respectfully submits that 
there are substantial flaws in the implementation of such orders--
including frequent and inexcusable delays in the liquidation of entries 
to which AD/CVD duties apply--they understand that these measures are 
legally sanctioned by the WTO and U.S. law. When AD/CVD duties are 
imposed, they are paid.

    However, there is no sound or just national or economic policy to 
justify remission of these duties to the U.S. companies that filed or 
supported the AD/CVD petitions. The purpose of AD/CVD orders is to 
equalize pricing in the U.S. and ``home'' markets; it is not to provide 
a windfall for U.S. producers.

      The clear inequity and demonstrable illegality of the 
Byrd Amendment is a direct consequence of the fact that it was approved 
by Congress through ``back door'' channels as a last minute amendment 
to an appropriations bill. It was NOT reviewed by the Subcommittees and 
Committees of jurisdiction, the very bodies to which such measures 
should be and typically are routinely referred so as to benefit from a 
knowledgeable and dispassionate review in light of existing law, 
international obligations and sound national and economic policy.
      Every dollar of Byrd Amendment money that does to a 
domestic petitioner/supporter is a dollar that no longer goes to the 
general fund of the U.S. Treasury. In other words, the Byrd Amendment 
operates as a drain on the budget of the United States which, at the 
very least, exacerbates the already dire budgetary shortfall in this 
country. It is, purely and simply, a ``deficit enabler.''

    As a result of the diversion of AD/CVD duties from the U.S. 
Treasury to the pockets of domestic petitioners/supporters, government 
agencies and programs must make do with less, or the revenue lost would 
need to be otherwise re-generated through some form of tax hike or new 
fees. In either case, the American public loses.
    There should be nothing controversial about the repeal of an 
illegal and ill-considered statutory provision. As this country aims in 
the current Doha Round of multilateral negotiations under the WTO to 
eliminate government subsidies provided abroad, we should not be 
fostering an illegal subsidy on our own shores. The time for repeal of 
the Byrd Amendment is now.
    For these reasons, AFI strongly supports passage of H.R. 1121.
            Respectfully Submitted,
                                                   Jeffrey S. Levin
                Counsel to the Association of Food Industries, Inc.

                                 

              Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22201
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
1238 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), I want to express our strong support for 
the inclusion of H.R. 1121, a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    AIAM is a trade association representing 14 international motor 
vehicle manufacturers who have invested over $27 billion to manufacture 
about 30 percent of all passenger cars and light trucks produced in the 
United States. AIAM members directly employ over 93,000 Americans, and 
generate an additional 500,000 U.S. jobs in dealerships and supplier 
industries nationwide. AIAM members include Aston Martin, Ferrari, 
Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, 
Renault, Subaru, Suzuki and Toyota. AIAM also represents original 
equipment suppliers and other automotive-related trade associations.
    While we have many objections to the CDSOA, commonly known as ``The 
Byrd Amendment,'' we will focus on three of them. We strongly believe 
the Byrd Amendment is counterproductive to U.S. trade policy and 
injurious to U.S. manufacturers, especially to those which may use 
products subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. American 
companies pay these duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, these 
payments are then arbitrarily transferred to their competitors. As a 
result, one part of U.S. industry is taxed to subsidize another part of 
U.S. industry and one segment of the industry is pitted against 
another. This is bad policy and bad economics.
    As if this was not bad enough, the Byrd Amendment has become a 
``double whammy'' on U.S. business. In 2002, The World Trade 
Organization (WTO) determined the Byrd Amendment violates provisions of 
the WTO. The European Union, Canada, Japan and Mexico, among others, 
are either retaliating against U.S. exporters, or are in the process of 
doing so. Thus successful U.S. exporters who also may be paying 
antidumping or countervailing duties are now doubly penalized to pay 
for this injurious policy.
    Our third objection is that the Byrd Amendment does not require the 
recipient of the funds to use them to improve the competitiveness of 
its business. There are only minimal restrictions on the use of the 
money and that use is not monitored. The money is simply a gift from 
the U.S. Treasury. This is bad policy.
    We strongly urge inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous trade 
bill. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
            Sincerely,
                                               Timothy C. MacCarthy
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

Statement of Michael Thomas DeArmon, Backyard Ventures, Amarillo, Texas
    We support repeal of the Byrd Amendment (Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act) because:

      The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on American 
manufacturers who use products subject to antidumping and 
countervailing duties. American companies are the ones that pay these 
duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, they have these duty 
payments transferred to their U.S. competitors. Therefore, part of an 
industry is taxed to subsidize another part of that industry.
      The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few 
companies that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually 
undermines it. Most American manufacturers do not benefit from the Byrd 
Amendment. More than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to 
only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to 
only 44 companies.
      The Byrd Amendment does not restrict the recipients' use 
of Byrd Amendment money.
      Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on 
``qualified expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by 
Customs or any government agency.
      The Byrd Amendment annually funnels money collected from 
the imposition of anti-dumping duties from government coffers to 
companies that petition for those duties. Such funneling has totaled 
more than $1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
      U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions 
knowing full well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S. 
companies in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to 
include more products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including 
products not even made in the U.S. Because the duties on the imported 
products are funneled to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment 
creates a disincentive to produce the product subject to the duty in 
the U.S.
      We rely on open trade for our export sales and our 
purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment makes importing raw materials 
more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and uncertainty.
      This law was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies.
      The antidumping and countervailing duty laws are more 
arbitrary, the duties are higher and orders are harder to revoke or 
change as a result of the Byrd Amendment.
      This harms consuming industries, but they have no ability 
to participate meaningfully in these cases. Repeal of the Byrd 
Amendment is an essential step in allowing consuming industries an 
opportunity to protect their interests as a matter of fundamental 
fairness.
      We export products that are actually or potentially 
subject to retaliation: our major trading partners will take action 
against U.S. exports as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal 
this WTO-illegal measure.

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                  Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers Association
                                Birmingham, United Kingdom, B16 9PN
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is written on behalf of BRBMA (Ball and Roller Bearing 
Manufacturers' Association) in response to the Subcommittee on Trade's 
solicitation of written comments to the record from interested parties 
concerning technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and potential 
inclusion of pending bills in the miscellaneous trade package. The 
Council of the BRBMA is made up of member companies engaged in the 
manufacture of bearings and engine components, employing over 3000 
people at facilities located throughout Great Britain. All members are 
subsidiaries of parent Companies domiciled in Europe, Japan or the USA.
    The BRBMA appreciates this opportunity to strongly urge the 
Subcommittee to include H.R. 1121 in any miscellaneous trade bill, to 
repeal  754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.  1675c, the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``Byrd 
amendment'').
I. Introduction
    The CDSOA is an illegal subsidy awarded to a very small group of 
American companies. While the law clearly benefits the chosen few, its 
effect is overwhelmingly negative for most international and domestic 
companies alike, to say nothing of the consuming public. Moreover, by 
ignoring the World Trade Organisation (``WTO'') ruling that the law is 
illegal, the U.S. government is undermining the rule of law and U.S. 
interest here and abroad. It is therefore essential that H.R. 1121 
which would repeat the Byrd amendment, be included in the miscellaneous 
trade bill and, ultimately, be enacted into law.
II. Background
    In October 2000, the Congress enacted the CDSOA as part of the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001.\1\ The CDSOA was inserted 
in to the Act without being reviewed by any committee having 
jurisdiction over trade matters in either the House or the Senate. 
President Clinton signed the bill on October 28, 2000, but protested 
the inclusion of the CDSOA provision, recognising that it violated U.S 
international trade obligations. The Byrd amendment has been highly 
controversial since it was signed into law, and it is generally agreed 
that it would not have withstood Congressional scrutiny had it been 
considered and evaluated as separate legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-387, 
114 Stat. 1549 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CDSOA revised the long-standing practice in the United States 
whereby customs duties received from the importation of merchandise 
covered by an antidumping or countervailing duty order are paid into 
and remain a part of the United States Treasury. Under the CDSOA, the 
domestic producers that filed and/or supported the original antidumping 
or countervailing duty petitions are instead paid those monies 
collected after U.S. Customs and Border Protection deposits them in the 
U.S. Treasury's Offset Account. The CDSOA has resulted in more than $1 
billion in antidumping and countervailing duties being dispersed by 
Customs to affected domestic producers through 2004.\2\ More than half 
the Byrd amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine companies, and 
more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 companies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Http://www.citac.info/press/release/205/08_01.php
    \3\ http://www.citac.info/press/release/205/08_01.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 9, 2001, nine members of the WTO--Australia, Brazil, 
Chile, the European Community, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and 
Thailand--requested consultations with the United States to contest the 
legality of the Byrd amendment.\4\ Failure to resolve the dispute 
during consultations led to the establishment of a Dispute Settlement 
Body (``DSB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Request for Consultations, WT/DS217/1 (Jan. 9, 2001), available 
at http://wto.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joined by Canada and Mexico, the complaining parties argued that 
the CDSOA violated the GATT, the Antidumping Agreement (``AD 
Agreement''), and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement 
(``SCM Agreement'').\5\ After due consideration, the DSB held that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with articles 5.4, 18.1, and 18.4 of the AD 
Agreement; articles 11.4, 32.1, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; articles 
VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; and article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement.\6\ The panel therefore ordered the United States to conform 
the CDSOA to these international agreements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Report of the Panel--Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
of 2000, WT/DS217/R, P1.4 (Sept. 16, 2002), available at http://
www.wto.org/english/tratop_c/dispu?e/217_234r_a_e.pdf [hereinafter 
Panel Report].
    \6\ See id. At 8.1.
    \7\ See id. At 8.4-8.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 22, 2002, the United States appealed the DSB's decision 
to the Appellate Body for subsequent review, arguing that the CDSOA was 
a permissible, specific relief action against dumping or subsidisation, 
and was thus consistent with article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and 
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.\8\ In a January 16, 2003 report, the 
Appellate Body affirmed the DSB's determination that the CDSOA violated 
the United States' international obligations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See WTO Report of the Appellate Body--Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R (Jan. 16, 
2003).
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DSB adopted the report of the panel as modified by the 
Appellate Body on January 27, 2003.\10\ The deadline for the United 
States to conform the CDSOA to WTO principles expired on December 27, 
2003.\11\ After failing to do so, eight member nations in January 2004 
petitioned the DSB to allow retaliation.\12\ In August of that year, 
the arbitrator decided that retaliatory sanctions could be applied 
equivalent to seventy-two percent of the disbursements made under the 
CDSOA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Decision by the Arbitrator, United States--Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000: Recourse to Arbitration by the United 
States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU, ST/DS217/ARB (Aug. 31, 2004).
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id. at 5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The CDSOA is illegal
    The first reason the CDSOA should be repealed is because it is 
illegal. As explained above, the DSB has determined that the law is 
inconsistent with WTO requirements. While a WTO decision is not binding 
on a member state, the United States is undermining its role as an 
international leader by continuing to ignore the WTO's ruling.
    A fundamental principle of the global economy is that no national 
entity has the ability to function independent of others. The influence 
that national economies have on each other elicits the need for an 
international trading framework. The GATT system was founded upon rules 
of non-discrimination, trade liberalisation, fair competition, and 
sovereignty.\14\ The WTO, in incorporating the provisions of GATT and 
its amendments, functions as ``reciprocally and mutually advantageous 
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other 
barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in 
international trade relations.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, pmbl., Oct. 30, 
1947, 61 Stat. A-11, T.I.A.S. 1700, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.
    \15\ GATT, pmbl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The WTO refined specific provisions of the GATT with respect to 
antidumping procedures in the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
in order to further harmonize the international trade system. The 
effort to preserve fairness is an essential element of the 
Agreement.\16\ The United States, by not complying with the WTO 
decision, is abandoning the principles of international trade which it 
successfully advocated over the past half century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ This is evidenced by the fact that duties ``shall remain in 
force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping 
which is causing injury.'' Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994,  2.1 (1994), available 
at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The CDSOA is bad for the global economy
    The Byrd amendment is fundamentally unfair to global competitors. 
The CDSOA encourage U.S. producers to file and support trade actions 
knowing they will be eligible for subsidies under the CDSOA if they do 
so. There is also a legitimate fear that the United States' decision to 
ignore the WTO ruling will lead to a domino effect, with other 
countries adopting protectionist measures and ignoring any subsequent 
WTO decisions.\17\ To the extent other countries adopt comparable 
policies, not repealing this law may lead to further interference in 
the ability of U.S. exporters to complete in the global trading system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Charkravarthi Raghavan, Three Disputes Sent to Panel, Third 
World Network (July 24, 2001), at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/
disputes/htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The CDSOA is bad for the U.S. economy
    The CDSOA should be repealed because it is likewise detrimental to 
the economic welfare of the United States. It provides for the annual 
payment of a significant unearned subsidy to a very few companies that, 
far from assisting American manufacturing, actually undermines it.\18\ 
The CDSOA harms more American companies than it helps. It has a double 
impact on American manufacturers who use products subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duties. The imposition of dumping or 
countervailing duties on imported products is designed to equalize the 
so-called competitive advantage those products enjoy over comparable 
products produced in the United States. This is the basic economic 
rationale that underlies the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. 
American importers, including those subsequently in receipt of 
distributions, pay these duties. However the subsequent distribution 
eliminates the equalisation factor, and a distinct competitive 
advantage is shifted to CDSOA beneficiaries. This is not what the trade 
laws are designed to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ http/:www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For U.S. companies within the field of a subject antidumping case, 
the CDSOA also encourages inefficient production. Domestic firms that 
have ceased producing the subject merchandise now have an incentive to 
resume production and receive the CDSOA distribution. Under the law, a 
firm can receive distributions only if it is in the business of 
producing the good in question. That a company ceased production after 
the duty was imposed suggests that it was not as competitive a producer 
as the other firms in the market. A firm that returns to production 
therefore, may inefficiently employ capital, labor, land, and other 
resources that would be more productively employed in producing another 
good or service.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, (Mar. 2, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firms that have not ceased production, on the other hand, are 
encouraged by the CDSOA to increase their output beyond the levels 
signalled by market incentives. The Byrd amendment stipulates that 
``the distributions shall be made on a pro rata basis based on new and 
remaining qualifying expenditures,'' where qualifying expenditures 
consist of expenditures on manufacturing facilities, equipment, 
research and development, and just about anything else. Many of these 
expenditures vary with the scale of production. The effect of the CDSOA 
is to subsidize the perceived cost of production by domestic firms.\20\ 
This affects not only the companies involved in the dumping case. Such 
firms increase their output beyond the point where the unsubsidized 
cost to the firm, and thus to the economy, is balanced by the price. 
Since the price or value is less than the cost to the economy of that 
additional output, the economic welfare of the country is reduced.\21\ 
The overall net effect of the distributions mandated by the CDSOA is to 
cause the firms receiving the distributions to produce output at 
greater cost than it is worth, and to cause domestic firms that do not 
receive the distributions to restrict output that would be worth more 
than the cost of production. As a consequence, U.S. gross domestic 
product and gross national product decline.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CDSOA also significantly increases transaction costs. The 
resources necessary to pursue a successful antidumping or 
countervailing duty claim (i.e., costs of lawyers, economists, and 
lobbyists) are transaction costs that add to the social cost of the 
laws. By increasing the incentives for firms to file and pursue 
antidumping petitions and by adding similar costs associated with 
implementing the distribution of duty revenues, the CDSOA increases 
those social costs.
    Moreover, by increasing the likelihood of cases being filed and/or 
maintained, the law increases the burden on the federal government. 
These cases must be administered by the International Trade Commission 
and the Department of Commerce, consuming time and resources. At the 
same time, the CDSOA funnels money collected from the imposition of 
duties from government coffers to the few companies that petition for 
those duties. Such funnelling has totalled more than $1 billion to 
date, with billions more waiting in the wings. Taking money from the 
federal government, especially at a time of huge budget deficits, to 
give it to a tiny segment of U.S. industry that is not entitled to it 
consonant with U.S. international trading obligations, is hardly sound 
fiscal policy. The actual cost of the provision is stated directly by 
the Administration's FY2004 budget proposal:
    The budget also proposes to repeal a Treasury-administered 
provision in the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act, the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, that annually pays 
approximately $230 million to complainants in antidumping/
countervailing duty cases. These corporate subsidies effectively 
provide a significant ``double-dip'' benefit to industries that already 
gain protection from the increased import prices provided by 
countervailing tariffs. While the Administration does not believe that 
these payments are inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations, repeal of 
the provision would allow the funds to be directed to higher priority 
uses.
    Accordingly, not only would repeal of the CDSOA not cost the 
Government anything, it would actually result in a net annual 
Governmental benefit of approximately $230 million.
VI. U.S. Exporters are now exposed to WTO-sanctioned retaliation by 
        trading partners
    Not only is the CDSOA, in itself, bad for the U.S. economy, but now 
other countries are in the process of retaliating against the United 
States for not adhering to the WTO ruling. From September 1, 2005, 
Japan will impose a 15% duty on steel imports from the U.S., targeting 
products such as ball bearings and airplane parts (which are produced 
in the U.S. by various companies affiliated to our members). These 
additional tariffs could amount to as much as $51 million. Japan's 
action follows the European Union's and Canada's decision to impose 
retaliatory duties on U.S.-made goods, which began on May 1, 2005. The 
EU imposed a 15% duty on various types of paper, clothing fabrics, 
footwear, and machinery--amounting to tariffs worth approximately $28 
million, and Canada imposed like duties on cigarettes, oysters and live 
swine, worth about $14 million. On August 18, 2005, Mexico began 
imposing tariffs of 30% on dairy blends, 20% on wine, and 9% on chewing 
gum and candy manufactured in the U.S.
VII. Conclusion
    As detailed above, the BRBMA would submit that the CDSOA should be 
repealed. By ignoring the WTO's ruling of illegality, the U.S. 
Government is compromising the rule of law, as well as American 
standing in global trade negotiations. Not only is the law illegal and 
unfair to both international and domestic companies, the law is 
economically unsound, resulting in immediate and significant damage to 
the world and U.S. economies. Its continued application is also 
exposing U.S. exporters to WTO-sanctioned retaliation by trading 
partners. For these reasons, the BRBMA of Great Britain urges that H.R. 
1121 be included in the miscellaneous trade package, and that it be 
repealed immediately.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Yours sincerely,
                                                      Kate Hartigan
                                                  Managing Director

                                 

                                Moultonborough, New Hampshire 03254
                                                    August 30, 2005
    I am writing in support of H.R. 1121 and a repeal of the so-called 
Byrd Amendment.
    The ``Byrd Amendment'' has been very disruptive of the part of the 
construction supply business that I am in. We provide metal plate 
connected wood trusses that allow for the safer, more efficient 
construction of homes and other wood frame buildings.
    Here in the Northeast part of the U.S., much of the lumber in the 
grades required for efficient framing come from Canada. The 
protectionist trade remedies that have been imposed on Canadian 
softwood lumber have dramatically increased the cost of the materials 
used in our products and therefore, hurt the consumers of our products, 
who, for the most part, are homebuyers.
    The added cost of this lumber has also produced a serious problem 
in the ability of U.S. wood truss manufacturers to compete with the 
Canadian manufacturers who are not subject to the Tariff that the Byrd 
Amendment allowed to be imposed. This has caused the elimination of 
jobs in the truss industry in the U.S.. Canadian truss manufacturers 
are unfairly advantaged because the tariff on the lumber they use is 
not applied. The tariff adds as much as 25 to 30% to the price on the 
material that makes up about 50% of the product cost. American truss 
manufacturers are being hurt by this situation, and, more importantly, 
the cost of housing is increased.
    This tariff has rewarded the petitioning companies to the point 
where trade suits are encouraged, and the result is more protectionist 
laws, not open trade that benefits the consumers.
    The tariffs have also resulted in retaliation from other countries, 
such as the duty Canada has announced it will impose on a number of 
U.S. products, further hurting American workers. Punitive tariffs are 
also being imposed by the E.U. on a number of U.S. made products.
    The passage of this repeal will allow the market to return to 
finding its own balance, a situation that benefits everyone.
    Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to provide 
information for you on this subject. I hope it is useful to you in 
making an informed judgment on this important issue. I invite you to 
contact me if I can I can be of any further help.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Josiah H. Bartlett

                                 

  Statement of Paula J. Prahl, Best Buy Co. Inc., Richfield, Minnesota
    We want to take this opportunity to stress how vital it is that the 
subcommittee support H.R. 1121, currently under consideration in the 
miscellaneous trade bill. Best Buy is the number one consumer 
electronics retailer in the nation and has substantial interest in the 
outcome of this bill.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    When section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) became law, not many members of 
Congress knew that the CDSOA (now known also as the ``Byrd amendment 
'') had been added to the legislation until after the vote. All members 
were denied the opportunity to understand its full ramifications 
through committee hearings, public comment, or debate.
    Since its passage, the CDSOA has proven to be one of the worst 
pieces of trade legislation passed in recent memory. To no great 
surprise for those who understood its deficiencies but had no 
opportunity to comment on them, the CDSOA was also found to violate 
U.S. obligations under the rules of international trade. In short, the 
CDSOA a paradigm example of how efforts to circumvent the legislative 
process invariably result in ill-considered and flawed bills, from 
which flows a host of damaging consequences.
    Best Buy applauds the introduction of H.R. 1121 to repeal the CDSOA 
and its possible inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. Examination 
of the impact and effect of the CDSOA since it went into effect present 
compelling arguments supporting the conclusion that it is bad law and 
should be repealed.

      The CDSOA has funneled more than $1 billion (with 
billions more in the offing) from the U.S. Treasury general fund--away 
from spending on public education, housing, the courts, enforcement of 
our environmental laws, national security, or other basic services of 
the federal government--and into the pockets of companies that do not 
need to account to the American taxpayer or anyone else what they 
intend to do with the money. It is, in short, unmerited and unlawful 
corporate welfare and a frightful waste of government money.
      The World Trade Organization rightly ruled that the CDSOA 
violates U.S. international trade obligations and has authorized 
retaliation against U.S. exports for Congress' failure to repeal it by 
the end of 2003.
      CDSOA undermines the proper administration of the trade 
remedies laws and harms average American consumers and the U.S. 
economy. It does so by encouraging, and in effect subsidizing companies 
to join in the filing of antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations they would otherwise have not supported, and against 
products that would otherwise not have been included in the scope of 
the investigations because they are not produced in the United States.
      Finally, as long as the CDSOA remains on the books, it 
will increasingly act to undermine U.S. global leadership on trade. The 
ability of our trading partners to paint the United States as a 
scofflaw for failure to repeal this law will deal a serious blow to 
U.S. credibility in WTO negotiations and dispute settlement cases that 
are of key importance to U.S. trade policy objectives and our economy.

    These are just a few of the reasons why it is high time to repeal 
the CDSOA, and why Best Buy strongly supports H.R. 1121 and encourage 
its inclusion in the next miscellaneous tariff bill.
    Best Buy appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on the 
miscellaneous trade bill. We strongly support and urge the inclusion of 
H.R. 1121.

                                 

                                                    British Embassy
                                               Washington, DC 20008
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    The British Government welcomes the opportunity to comment on the 
inclusion of H.R. 1121, repealing Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, into miscellaneous trade legislation to be considered by your 
Committee. We attach the highest importance to maintaining and 
promoting the normal business relations so critical to the prosperity 
of our two countries. For these reasons the British Government hopes 
that your Committee will take the views expressed in this letter into 
account during its deliberations.
    The vast majority of trade and business conducted between the 
United Kingdom and the United States is undertaken under normal 
circumstances and without impediment. However, such are the 
complexities of international trade that occasionally issues do arise 
that have an adverse affect on our ability to maintain normal trading 
conditions. In general terms, when such difficulties arise both the 
British Government and the European Commission will always prefer their 
resolution through consultations if at all possible.
    Regrettably, the Byrd Amendment has resulted in a World Trade 
Organisation dispute and WTO-authorised retaliation addressing the 
concerns of a number of members including the European Union. The 
British Government hopes that your Committee will give positive 
consideration to the provisions of H.R. 1121 as a means to resolve this 
issue and so enable the E.U. to withdraw its retaliatory measures.
    The U.K.'s Department of Trade and Industry has received comments 
both from U.K. traders importing goods from the U.S. and from 
subsidiaries or affiliates of U.S. owned companies emphasising that 
their businesses are being damaged by the current situation. We are 
aware too, that U.S. owned businesses operating in the U.K. have 
written to your Committee expressing concerns about the adverse impact 
on their business interests in the United States.
    Issues arising from the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding are, 
of course, a matter of E.U. rather than Member State competence. The 
European Commission has already submitted comments in relation to H.R. 
1121 on behalf of the E.U. and its Member States. The comments of the 
British Government in this matter should be considered as being 
complementary to those that you have already received from the European 
Commission.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this important 
matter.

                                                      David Manning
                                                         Ambassador

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

    Statement of Beatrice Khne and Sigrid Zirbel, Bundesverband der 
               Deutschen Industrie, e.V., Berlin, Germany
1. About BDI
    The BDI (Federation of German Industries) is the umbrella 
organization for a total of 35 industrial sector associations and 
groups of associations in Germany. It represents the interests of more 
than 100,000 enterprises,employing about 8 million people, in dealings 
with national and international legislative and decision-making bodies.
2. Why BDI supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment

      The World Trade Organizationn (WTO) has found that the 
Byrd Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade. However, the 
U.S. has ignored this ruling.
      Failing to act on the WTOs ruling undermines the U.S. 
government`s ability to take a leadership role on international trade 
issues.
      The Byrd amendment takes a dual toll on global companies: 
first, foreign companies are forced to pay these duties. Second, due to 
the Byrd Amendment, the duty payments are then transferred to 
competitors from the U.S.
      The Byrd Amendment encourages U.S. producer to file trade 
actions, as they know full well that they will be eligible for 
subsidies. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments have a 
clear incentive to include more products within the scope of anti-
dumping or anti-subsidy cases, including products not even made in the 
U.S.
      Products that are not produced in the U.S. are still 
included in the scope of products subject to Byrd Amendment duties--due 
solely to the potential windfall of Byrd payments, which has totalled 
more than $ 1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
      The allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on 
``qualified expenditures'', which are not monitored or audited by 
Customs or any other government agency.
      German industries rely on open trade for their export 
sales. The Byrd Amendment makes exporting raw materials for U.S. 
consuming industries and consumers more difficult and risky, increasing 
their costs and uncertainty.
3. BDI Position
    The intent of antidumping measures is to neutralize any detrimental 
effects of dumping. The Byrd Amendment passes funds from importers to 
complaining parties, which amounts to overcompensation (dumping tariffs 
on imports and financial transfer to complaining companies). The Byrd 
Amendment encourages the use of the antidumping instrument and has 
therefore been recognized as clearly in violation of WTO rules. The 
U.S. should bring its antidumping laws into WTO compliance as soon as 
possible and repeal the Byrd Amendment.

                                 

                                              Buzzi Unicem USA Inc.
                                      Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18017
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Buzzi Unicem USA and its 1,600 employees to 
express our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can 
by no means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to 
existing law.
    Buzzi Unicem USA is the fourth largest cement company in the U.S. 
Headquartered in Bethlehem, PA, we operate 10 cement plants located in 
the states of Missouri, Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, Louisiana, 
Illinois, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. In addition to our plants, we also 
operate 26 cement terminals with many located in the Texas, Louisiana, 
Tennessee and Oklahoma area.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                  David A. Nepereny
                                                  President and CEO

                                                     Michael Berlin
 Senior Vice President, Marketing, Promotion and Government Affairs

                                                    William Humenuk
               Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

                                                         Bruce Keim
                          Senior Vice President, Technical Services

                                 

    Statement of Allen Erickson, Cal-Asia Truss, Concord, California
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    Cal-Asia Truss produces structural building components--metal-plate 
connected wood trusses and open-web floor joists--which are made 
primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel 
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes 
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress.
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                 

                                   California Minnesota Honey Farms
                                        Eagle Bend, Minnesota 56446
                                                    August 28, 2005
    My name is Jeff Anderson; I operate a migratory beekeeping 
operation California Minnesota Honey Farms based in Oakdale California 
and Eagle Bend Minnesota. My operation is or was, geared primarily 
toward honey production. Unfair competition primarily from China has 
severely cut into domestic honey pricing. Anti dumping followed by the 
Byrd Amendment have helped domestic honey prices attain workable 
levels.
    I am writing because of my concerns with the 2005 Miscellaneous 
Tariff Bill. There are two very troubling portions; H.R. 1121 and H.R. 
2473.
    I am strongly opposed to HR 1121 because it will repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. (CDSOA) CDSOA, The 
Byrd Amendment was responsible for getting and keeping domestic honey 
prices at a level which kept my beekeeping operation solvent. With 2003 
through early 2004 honey prices, the roughly 350,000 lbs I produce 
grossed about $525,000, if prices fall to Chinese levels that same crop 
will gross $168,000. In 2004 my tax return showed about $25,000 
`profit'. DO THE MATH; I can not compete against cheap Chinese honey 
produced by `slave labor'. Communist economies are driven by government 
greed, not real life cost of doing business. If a product cost to much 
to produce simply pay your `slaves' less to produce it; undercut your 
competition until they cease to exist; then raise the price to a 
profitable levels. My operation will cease to exist if the Byrd 
Amendment is repealed, and honey prices fall to and stay at `Chinese' 
levels.
    I am also opposed to HR2473. HR2473 will `alter' the calculation 
for `all others' and will significantly reduce duties collected. The 
effect will be more financial incentive for the Chinese to import 
cheap, substandard honey.
    The proposed repeals amount to `outsourcing'. `Outsourcing' honey 
will put U.S. beekeepers out of business. Putting U.S. beekeepers out 
of business will have a HUGE ripple effect. Honeybees are responsible 
for a large portion of food produced. There is already a large outcry 
from crop growers that require insect pollination to set their crops. 
Honeybees are in short supply. Putting the pollinator's `managers' out 
of business by trying to save consumers a few pennies in retail honey 
prices is folly. It is not possible to `outsource' pollination!!! The 
pennies saved will cost thousands in the long run. Crop shortfalls will 
cause food prices to skyrocket.
    PLEASE!!! Apply some uncommon sense; do not repeal CDSOA, VOTE NOT 
ON (H.R. 1121). PLEASE!!! Do not alter the duties collected; VOTE NO ON 
(HR 2473).
    Thanks for you consideration and actions in this matter.
            Sincerely
                                                      Jeff Anderson
                                                 Owner and operator

                                 

                                   California Cut Flower Commission
                                      Watsonville, California 95077
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. which 
requested comments for the record regarding proposed bills concerning 
``technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals.'' A list of these miscellaneous trade bills is 
provided in the Advisory. This letter is the California Cut Flower 
Commission's response to the Subcommittee's request.
    The California Cut Flower Commission (CCFC) represents over 300 cut 
flower growers in the state of California. These growers produce 
approximately 70% of the cut flowers grown in the United States.
    In particular, the CCFC is concerned about, and opposes, two bills; 
H.R. 1121, and H.R. 2473. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section 754 
of the Tariff Act of 1930'' and H.R. 2473 is ``A bill to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others rate in 
antidumping cases.'' These bills are controversial and should be 
deleted from the final miscellaneous trade bill.
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Fair Trade:
    As the organization that represents the vast majority of cut flower 
producers in California, the CCFC is an unwavering supporter of strong 
trade law remedies. Effective and useable trade remedy laws are 
important tools to maintaining a level playing field for our industry 
in particular and more broadly for U.S. agricultural producers.
    The CCFC believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws in 
this bill or elsewhere, should be rejected. Absent strong trade remedy 
laws, it will be harder for U.S. companies and workers to compete 
fairly with subsidized and dumped imports. And, without effective and 
useable trade remedy laws on the books; market opening trade policies 
will lose the support of the American people.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will undermine trade remedy laws in the 
ways detailed below. These bills are the type of controversial measures 
should not be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:
      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan 
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal 
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to eligible domestic industries found to have been injured 
by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our 
foreign competitors do not cease. CDSOA distributes money only when 
dumping and subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and 
subsidization cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
Concerns about H.R. 2473:

      This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by 
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern 
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
      This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact, 
it would make a significant and harmful change to the antidumping law 
by making it exceeding difficult in a large number of cases for the 
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for 
non-investigated exporters.
      The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all 
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted 
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual 
exporters that were investigated.
      Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted 
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data. 
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially 
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are 
not uncommon.
      ``Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual 
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to 
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
      H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating 
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available, 
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many case, there would be 
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
      In substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law. 
H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in carrying out its 
statutory responsibilities to administer the antidumping law.
A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO Panel or 
        Appellate Body Decisions
    Another reason to delete H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from a 
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are legislation designed 
to change U.S. law in response to controversial decisions by WTO 
dispute panels and Appellate Body. A non-controversial miscellaneous 
trade bill is not the appropriate vehicle to make such legislative 
changes to trade remedy laws.
    These bills clearly respond to specific cases where WTO panels and 
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On 
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the 
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach. 
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from 
the text of the WTO Agreements.
    In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to 
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through 
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just 
that in the Doha Round negotiations. Both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, if 
legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
    In conclusion, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 need to be expeditiously 
removed from the miscellaneous trade bill package. There is no reason 
to jeopardize the passage of the hundreds of other helpful and non-
controversial bills contained in the package.
                                                         Lee Murphy
                                                      President/CEO

                                 

                                 California Portland Cement Company
                                         Glendora, California 91741
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of California Portland Cement Company and its 
approximately 1000 employees to express our strong opposition to the 
inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly 
controversial bill that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no means be fairly described as a 
``technical correction'' to existing law.
    California Portland Cement Company (CPCC) was established in 1891 
and is headquartered in Glendora, California. CPCC operates three 
cement plants located in California and Arizona. We also operate 18 
ready-mix concrete and concrete products plants in those two states.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                    James A. Repman
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                                   Canadian Embassy
                                               Washington, DC 20001
                                                  September 1, 2005
Mr. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    In commenting on the proposed contents of the miscellaneous trade 
legislation, I wish to express the strong support of the Government of 
Canada for HR 1121, the bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), also known as the ``Byrd 
Amendment''. I have termed CDSOA a type of bounty on trade, because it 
distributes anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties collected to the firms 
that supported the trade remedy action. It was reviewed by the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) and, in January 2003, determined to be 
inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Agreements governing anti-
dumping and countervailing duties. When the U.S. failed to bring itself 
into compliance, Canada and seven other co-complainants were authorized 
by the WTO to impose retaliation.
    As a result, from May 1, 2005, various U.S. goods are subject to 
retaliatory duties, pending repeal of the Byrd Amendment. WTO members 
who have taken that decision, including Canada, and others who are 
readying to do so, account for up to 71% of total U.S. exports and 64% 
of total U.S. imports.
    ``The longer Congress waits to repeal Byrd, the more American 
consumers and exporters will have to pay'', wrote the Wall Street 
Journal earlier this month. In a March 2004 report, the Congressional 
Budget Office criticized the Byrd Amendment for subsidizing the output 
of some U.S. firms at the expense of others, as well as inciting the 
initiation and discouraging the settlement of trade remedy cases. That 
CDSOA does not make economic sense has been shown by domestic 
observers. More recently, on August 22, 2005, the Congressional 
Research Service of The Library of Congress released a report on the 
Byrd Amendment, in which it notes that the repeal of the Amendment''. . 
. would do nothing to affect other U.S. AD or CVD laws, procedures or 
actions, and domestic industries would continue to benefits from these 
measures''. This conclusion supports the WTO finding that the Byrd 
Amendment is an unjustified double remedy not provided for in the WTO.
    In their most recent representation to the U.S. Administration, the 
eight co-complainants made the further point that ``the dispute 
settlement system is a fundamental pillar of the WTO in providing 
security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.'' The 
failure by the United States, one of the world's leading trading 
nations, to comply with its WTO obligations, hurts the credibility of 
the system and the interests of its members, the United States 
included. Canada is aware that certain supporters of the Byrd Amendment 
have pressed for the negotiation of a Byrd-like provision in current 
WTO rules negotiations. Canada opposes the consideration of this issue 
in the negotiating process and reiterates that the repeal of the Byrd 
Amendment is the only alternative to WTO-sanctioned retaliation. The 
Canadian Government urges prompt enactment of HR 1121.
                                                      Frank McKenna
                                                         Ambassador

                                 

                                   Carpenter Technology Corporation
                                        Reading, Pennsylvania 19612
                                                    August 29, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC

Dear Committee on Ways and Means:

    Carpenter Technology Corporation is an integrated specialty steel 
manufacturer of stainless steel bar, wire, rod and billet products with 
manufacturing locations in Reading, PA; Hartsville, SC; and Orangeburg, 
SC. We employ approximately 2,300 individuals across these three 
locations.
    Carpenter Technology wants to voice its strong opposition to H.R. 
1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill which calls for the repeal of the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). Secondly, 
Carpenter Technology also strongly opposes H.R. 2473, which alters the 
calculation of the ``all others'' rate in AD/CVD cases, thereby 
significantly reducing the amount of duties collected and distributed 
under the CDSOA.
    The distribution of funds Carpenter Technology received under CDSOA 
has created opportunities to reinvest in our operations and marketing. 
Carpenter has a strong history of making capital investments in order 
to maintain and improve its production plants and equipment. The CDSOA 
funds have been very beneficial in that regard. Over the past five 
years since the CDSOA went into effect, the total amount of Carpenter's 
capital investments
    has been enhanced significantly by the total amount received under 
the CDSOA. We are committed to continuing to improve our world 
competitive position in specialty steels and metals, and the CDSOA 
funds support that objective by restoring revenues that would have 
otherwise been lost as a result of foreign unfair trade practices.
    Carpenter Technology expects Congress will actively support 
manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by opposing repeal of the CDSOA and by 
supporting the U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as 
determined by Congress. Congress must fight efforts to undermine the 
CDSOA in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Negotiations in the 
current multilateral Doha Round, not repealing the Byrd Amendment 
(CDSOA), is the most effective way to resolve the WTO dispute. It was 
Congress who requested that our trade negotiators in the ongoing Doha 
Round push for revision of the WTO agreements so that CDSOA and similar 
programs relating to individual countries' use of AD/CVD duties will be 
expressly accepted as WTO consistent.
            Sincerely,
                                                 William A. Wellock
                                     Manager--Consolidated Planning

                                 

                                     Cattle Producers of Washington
                                        Soap Lake, Washington 98851
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) is submitting these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
for the record from all parties interested in technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. CPoW is a 
non-profit state cattlemen's organization dedicated to promoting the 
health and long term stability of independent producers in Washington 
State. Being a border state, international trade policies greatly 
affect the profitability and viability of our state's third largest 
commodity industry.
    CPoW welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bills being 
considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous package, in particular 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. CPoW supports maintaining strong and effective trade 
laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for 
Washington State ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as 
Washington State manufacturers and workers. In a fair market, U.S. 
producers are second to none. When foreign competitors flood the U.S. 
market with dumped and subsidized goods, however, the trade laws must 
be in place to provide a remedy for injury caused by unfairly traded 
imports. CPoW believes it would be inappropriate to use the 
miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, but that will be the 
effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, CPoW believes that H.R. 1121 should not be included 
in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    CPoW is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate Body 
of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill 
is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions and 
enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and the 
Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on CDSOA 
and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new obligations 
that the United States never agreed to and which are not found in the 
text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has previously 
directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of these disputes 
at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in the Doha Round 
rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete that process, 
which ought to result in a correction of the problems created by panel 
and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, CPoW appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments 
and would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into account CPoW's 
views on the three bills discussed above.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Chad Henneman
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                                        Censea Inc.
                                         Northfield, Illinois 60093
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Censea Inc., I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our Company strongly supports this legislation's 
inclusion in the trade bill.
    Our Company has been in business for over 50 years and is primarily 
an importer of seafood from throughout the world. We deal in many third 
world countries where seafood exports provide a critical piece of both 
the local and national economies. It has always been a source of pride 
to me that we can assist those people as they struggle to develop their 
economies and participate in worldwide free trade. Until the recent 
shrimp action was brought it was easy for me to expound on benefits of 
an economy and free trade. The Byrd Amendment appears to these people 
as protectionism at its worst and makes them question if the United 
States truly believes in free trade or only mouths the words.
    We strongly believe that the group of domestic seafood processors 
that filed an antidumping petition with the Commerce Department and the 
U.S. International Trade Commission against imported shrimp from six 
countries was primarily motivated by the prospect of receiving Byrd 
money. In fact, law firms representing the plaintiffs used flyers 
marketing the prospect of Byrd monies to recruit petitioners for the 
shrimp case. When litigation is a better option then improving and 
changing your business, there is something seriously wrong with our 
system. As an industry we have encouraged the domestic producers to 
adjust their business to the changing world market conditions over the 
last twenty years. These pleas unfortunately fell on deaf ears.
    Byrd payments were so prominent in the motivation for this case 
that when the domestic shrimp processors moved to have fresh shrimp 
removed from the scope of the investigation, shrimp producers (the 
fisherman) launched a lawsuit against the processors to protect their 
potential entitlement to Byrd monies.
    We also believe that the domestic shrimpers' opposition to the 
current ITC Changed Circumstance Investigation for shrimp imports from 
Thailand and India, initiated by the ITC because of the devastation 
caused by the December 2004 Tsunami, is based on the fear of losing 
Byrd monies and shows a total lack of sympathy for the plight of these 
individuals.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on shrimp imports 
from Brazil,
    China, Ecuador, India, Thailand and Vietnam, importers must pay the 
duties
    but, also face the unfair situation to see these funds transferred 
to the domestic industry as a reward for filing their lawsuit. U.S. 
businesses are sent the wrong message from our government: that trade 
protectionism makes a better business plan than modernization and that 
it is good business to litigate for profit.
    The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few companies 
that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually undermines 
it. More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only 
nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 
44 companies nationwide.
    U.S. producers in a wide variety of sectors are now filing trade 
actions because they know they will be eligible for Byrd money. The 
Byrd Amendment adds additional punitive damage-like incentives to file 
cases, in that a victory enriches the filer beyond simply ``leveling 
the playing field.''
    The Byrd Amendment is simply bad policy. The members of the 
domestic
    shrimp industry who filed the trade petition will not be required 
to use Byrd monies that they receive to take the steps necessary to 
modernize or improve their competitiveness. Instead, they can count on 
receiving a government handout from shrimp imports without doing 
anything to improve their competitive position.
    The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate
    committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to American 
companies. We request that you include H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous 
trade bill and appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important 
issue.
                                                   Jeffery A. Stern
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                                  Century Furniture
                                      Hickory, North Carolina 28603
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Century Furniture and its 1200 employees strongly oppose H.R. 
1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to maintain effective 
remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress should not treat its 
revocation as some sort of ``technical correction.''
    Century Furniture is headquartered in Hickory, North Carolina and 
operates 7 furniture manufacturing facilities in Catawba County.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs!
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Robert J. Maricich
                                                  President and CEO

                                                  Robert K. Johnson
                            Senior Vice President of Administration

                                                  R. Terry Jennings
                                                      Plant Manager

                                                        Eric Schenk
                                            Chief Operating Officer

                                                   James I. Johnson
                                                      Plant Manager

                                 

   Statement of Robert John Becht, Chambers Truss Inc., Fort Pierce, 
                                Florida
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    My company produces structural building components--metal-plate 
connected wood trusses, wall panels and open-web floor joists--which 
are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel 
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes 
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                 

                                                     City Furniture
                                             Tamarac, Florida 33321
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of City Furniture, I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this legislation's 
inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, City Furniture has over 
1,500 associates with annual sales over $300 million. Since our 
inception in 1971, we have established ourselves as a leader in the 
Furniture Retailing Industry, not only in South Florida, but in the 
nation. City Furniture offers excellent quality home furnishings--from 
the dining room to the bedroom to the home office--at outstanding 
values.
    To achieve these values for families to enjoy, City Furniture 
sources products domestically and globally. To provide our customers 
with the quality and values they want, we source domestically what is 
best made in the USA, and source globally what is best made elsewhere. 
Though we love to sell ``Made in the USA'' (in fact, we own a factory 
in Mississippi that makes our Kevin Charles Fine Upholstery line), 
imported products sometimes provide our customers with styles and 
values they prefer.
    In 2003, as you know, a group of domestic furniture manufacturers 
worked to restrict consumer access to affordable high quality wooden 
bedroom furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition against furniture 
from China with the Commerce Department and the International Trade 
Commission. We believe that some of these manufacturers filed the 
petition in order to line up to receive millions of dollars in special 
interest payments through the Byrd Amendment. I personally appreciate 
your past assistance and, once again, ask for your help.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden 
bedroom furniture, City Furniture not only must pay the duties, but 
also see the monies in the future transferred to some of the same 
manufacturers that petitioned for the duties. These duties also, 
unfortunately, raise prices for our consumers, and cause them to buy 
less furniture.
    The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than 
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine 
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 
companies nationwide.
    U.S. producers file trade actions because they know that they will 
be eligible for Byrd money. In this sense, the Byrd Amendment adds 
additional ``punitive damage-like'' incentives to file cases in that a 
victory enriches the filer beyond simply making them whole/leveling the 
playing field. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments also 
have a clear incentive to include more products within the scope of 
anti-dumping cases, including products not even made in the U.S., and 
to oppose ever eliminating any duty for fear of losing the Byrd money. 
Additionally, because the duties on the imported products are funneled 
to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment creates a disincentive 
to produce the product subject to the duty in the U.S. Indeed, Byrd 
recipients can import the products from China themselves and be 
insulated from antidumping duties.
    The Byrd Amendment is simply bad domestic policy. The furniture 
manufacturers who filed the trade petition will not be required to use 
the Byrd money they receive for job retraining or to improve their 
competitiveness. Instead, these companies can sit back and receive a 
government handout on every bedroom product imported into this country 
that goes right into their bottom-line. City Furniture's customers 
across Florida depend on having access to quality furniture for their 
homes at a reasonable price. We ask that the Trade Subcommittee 
consider the needs of retailers who import products, our associates, 
and our customers. The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration 
by the appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen 
injury to American companies.
    As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R. 
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill and once again applaud you for 
your leadership on this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Keith Koenig
                                                          President

                                 

      Statement of Barry Cullen, Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports
    This statement reflects the views of the Coalition for Fair Lumber 
Imports (the ``Coalition''), an alliance of large and small lumber 
producers from around the country, joined by hundreds of thousands of 
their employees, and tens of thousands of woodland owners. We 
appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement in anticipation of 
the Subcommittee's review of the proposed technical corrections to U.S. 
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
    The Coalition is united in opposition to the subsidization of 
Canadian lumber that has been found to be dumped into the U.S. market. 
These unfair trade practices by the Canadian government and lumber 
industry have caused significant hardship in the U.S. lumber industry 
and continue to threaten domestic lumber companies, their workers and 
communities, as well as thousands of timberland owners across this 
nation. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), or Byrd 
Amendment, is an essential component to remedy the injurious effects of 
unfair trade practices. The Coalition opposes the inclusion of H.R. 
1121--a bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, or more 
commonly known as the CDSOA--in the technical corrections and duty 
suspension bill package.
    The U.S. Department of Commerce has repeatedly found that Canadian 
lumber is heavily subsidized and dumped into the U.S. market. These 
unfair trade practices stem from an estimated annual $3 to $3.5 billion 
U.S. dollar subsidy program instituted by Canadian provincial 
governments to maintain artificially high employment and production 
levels in their lumber industry. The subsidy program is possible 
because the Canadian provinces own the vast bulk of merchantable timber 
in Canada. The government price of Canadian timber is only a fraction 
of the market-determined price of identical timber in U.S. border 
regions. Canadian companies unload their excess production into the 
U.S. market at a cost of thousands of good-paying American jobs. 
Through subsidies and policies that induce uneconomical manufacturing, 
the provinces export production cutbacks, mill closures and job losses 
to the United States.
    Despite having been repeatedly found to be dumping lumber into the 
U.S. market by the Department of Commerce, Canadian manufacturers are 
continuing to engage in this unfair trade practice. Furthermore, 
Canadian provinces are refusing to stop heavily subsidizing their 
lumber industry. The CDSOA is specifically designed to offset the 
injurious effects of repeat violators of the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws. The law provides crucial support to 
communities that have been decimated by such unfair trade practices, 
and is therefore essential to a broad range of manufacturing, 
agricultural, and fisheries industries across the United States.
    The CDSOA is a pivotal component of the U.S. trade laws enforcement 
mechanism. It is designed to level the playing field for U.S. 
manufacturers who have been, or are threatened to be, injured by unfair 
trade practices. Congress must not repeal this essential law, either in 
the technical corrections and duty suspension bill package, or in any 
other legislation.

                                 

                               Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws 
(CSUSTL) to express the Committee's strong opposition to inclusion of 
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in the package of miscellaneous tariff bills. 
CSUSTL believes that miscellaneous tariff legislation, which has 
traditionally included duty suspension bills and minor technical 
corrections, is decidedly not the appropriate vehicle for addressing 
changes in our trade laws stemming from adverse WTO panel and Appellate 
Body decisions.
    CSUSTL is an ad hoc coalition with a broad-based membership 
comprised of U.S. companies, trade associations, agricultural 
producers, labor organizations, and law firms. CSUSTL's membership 
represents a cross-section of the American economy and spans most major 
sectors including manufacturing, technology, agriculture, mining, 
lumber, consumer products, energy, and services. CSUSTL supports the 
maintenance of strong and effective trade laws and believes that the 
changes to U.S. trade laws that would occur as a result of the repeal 
of the CDSOA provision (H.R. 1121) and the amendment of the method for 
calculating ``all other rates'' in antidumping proceedings (H.R. 2473) 
would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the trade remedy laws 
for the companies and workers we represent.
    Congress has already made clear its direction that the 
Administration pursue negotiations within the Doha Development Round to 
resolve these issues, including clear language in the Trade Promotion 
Authority of the Trade Act of 2002, as well as the Consolidated 
Appropriations Bills in 2004 and 2005. The Administration itself has 
commented that such overreaching WTO decisions have created obligations 
that the U.S. has never agreed to in any prior WTO negotiation. U.S. 
negotiators should pursue the negotiations option to clarify the WTO-
compatibility of U.S. practice with respect to distribution of AD and 
CVD duties and with respect to the calculation of the ``all others 
rate''.
    This approach has strong Congressional support on both sides of the 
aisle. Consequently, the inclusion of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in a 
package of tariff bills is extremely controversial. They simply have no 
place in a bill in which debate is limited and which has typically been 
passed under suspension of the rules.
            Sincerely,
                                                 David A. Hartquist
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                  Confederation of British Industry
                                    London, United Kingdom WC1A 1DU
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Sub Committee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longsworth HOB
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr Chairman,

    The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) is the United Kingdom's 
leading business organisation. It represents over 240,000 companies of 
all sizes and from all sectors of the British business community that 
together employ over one third of the private sector workforce. As you 
know well, UK companies are the largest providers of foreign direct 
investment in the U.S. and U.S. companies are the largest providers of 
foreign direct investment in the UK. Together with our significant 
trading partnership, this underlines the crucial importance of the 
U.K.-U.S. economic relationship.
    We welcome the opportunity to comment on the intention to include 
HR 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. CBI strongly supports HR 1121, 
which would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Byrd Amendment).
    CBI believes that repeal is necessary for the following reasons:

      business gets caught in the crossfire of trade disputes. 
Retaliatory action, when authorised by the WTO and implemented, can 
disrupt trade. It often affects sectors with little or no relevance to 
the original complaint. We are aware of CBI member companies, including 
U.S. subsidiaries in the UK, that have been disadvantaged by EU 
retaliatory action through the imposition of additional customs duties 
on imports from the U.S.
      we are on record as having opposed the introduction of 
the Byrd Amendment as being contrary to WTO rules and because of the 
potential it has to distort the market.
      practice has shown that the Byrd Amendment has 
established a double hit on companies in anti-dumping or countervailing 
duty cases. In addition to the duties collected in such instances, 
which are part of legitimate trade policy remedies, the monies are then 
distributed to the companies that brought the actions. This gives an 
additional benefit to those complainant companies which is, in effect, 
an anti-competitive subsidy.
      British business is a strong supporter of the WTO and the 
multilateral rules-based system. We believe that WTO rulings should be 
adhered to in order to avoid retaliatory action. In addition, it is 
vital that WTO members conclude on ambitious Doha Development Agenda 
(DDA) negotiation in 2006. The strong signal from the U.S. Congress 
that passage of HR 1121 would send should assist progress in these 
negotiations.

    The CBI hopes that the Sub-Committee will favourably report out HR 
1121 and that the U.S. Congress will then act swiftly to resolve this 
trade dispute. By doing so, we believe it will contribute to an 
enhanced transatlantic relationship and to positive benefits in 
emphasising U.S. leadership at the WTO.
    As always, CBI would be happy to provide more information to assist 
the Sub-Committee if required.
            Yours sincerely,
                                                     Gary J Campkin
                                          Head, International Group

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

       The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU
                                                  Brussels, Belgium
                                                  September 1, 2005
Dear Members of the Trade Sub-Committee of the Ways and Means 
Committee,

    The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU, CIAA, 
is the voice of the European food and drink industry. Our industry with 
an annual turnover of approximately 800 billion euro, is a major 
employer and exporter. The United States has been for many years been 
the main export destination for many EU food and drink products and in 
2004, EU imports of U.S. food and drink products were worth 3 billion 
euro out of a total 40 billion.
    CIAA closely monitored the implementation of the U.S. Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act in October 2000, which diverts proceeds 
from anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases to U.S. companies that 
file a trade case. Since then, many European food and drink companies--
and other WTO member countries whose industries export to the United 
States--feared not only market distortions by legal proceedings that 
subsidize a small number of companies, but more importantly a tendency 
to undermine the international rules-based system of the WTO.
    A WTO panel was asked for clarification and the EU, together with 
eight other WTO members, welcomed the Appellate Body report on 27 
January 2003, which clearly rejected the Byrd Amendment. However, CIAA 
regrets that no bill has passed the U.S. Congress to repeal the illegal 
practice in order to implement the ruling and comply with WTO rules. In 
the meantime, the EU imposed retaliatory measures. Although CIAA 
understands the political importance of retaliatory policies as imposed 
by the European Union on 1 May 2005 it can only be seen as a second-
best and intermediate measure.
    In response to your invitation for submission of written comments, 
CIAA wishes to express strong support to the repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act because,

      the Byrd Amendment is a clear breach of the WTO agreement 
and contributes to undermine the U.S. government leadership on 
international trade issues.
      it encourages U.S. producers to file WTO cases with the 
only objective to receive money from these legal proceedings which is 
equivalent to a subsidy;
      EU exports have become difficult for products affected by 
the offset payments under the Byrd Amendment and has threatened exports 
of certain food products (for example pasta);
      retaliatory sanctions have increased companies' costs for 
importing sweet corn from the U.S. by 15 %. Should these sanctions be 
maintained, companies may look to secure alternative sources of supply.

    CIAA members support an international rules-based trading system 
for import and export that is predictable, consistent and stable, and 
that relies on competition and market forces and not on unilateral 
trade actions.
            Yours faithfully,
                                              Daniela Israelachwili
                                                   Director General

                                 

                                          Consumers for World Trade
                                            Washington, D.C., 20036
                                                    August 11, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: 202-225-8398

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    On behalf of the Board of Directors of Consumers for World Trade 
(CWT) and our members, I would like to express our strong support for 
the inclusion of H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    CWT is a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization, 
established in 1978 to promote consumer interests in international 
trade and to raise public awareness of the benefits of an open, 
multilateral trading system. CWT is the only consumer group in America 
whose sole mission is to educate, advocate and mobilize consumers to 
support liberal trade policies.
    We support repeal of the CDSOA (aka ``Byrd Amendment'') because:

      American consumers pay twice for many products as a 
result of the Byrd Amendment. They pay the increased price of the 
product that results from the imposition of extra duties on imports, 
and as taxpayers they pay a select few companies duty revenues that 
should be going into the general treasury of the United States to fund 
our Federal budget. This is a significant cost--over a billion dollars 
to date, and potentially many billions more in the future if the Byrd 
Amendment is not repealed.
      The Byrd Amendment forces American companies that depend 
on imported products--from direct importers to processors to 
wholesalers and retailers--, to subsidize those companies that 
participated in anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions. 
Companies that choose not to participate in such cases are penalized 
essentially because they choose not to seek protection.
      The Byrd Amendment money goes to a very small number of 
companies. More than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to 
only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to 
only forty-four companies. This is the worst kind of corporate welfare 
because it rewards a few companies, and thus distorts the competitive 
structure in an entire sector, in favor of companies who rely on 
protection.
      The Byrd Amendment places no realistic or practical 
restrictions on the use of the government subsidies it authorizes. 
Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on ``qualified 
expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by Customs or any 
government agency. It is simply additional cash for which the 
recipients do not have to account once they have been paid.
      The possibility of receiving Byrd payments creates a 
powerful incentive for filing antidumping and countervailing duty 
cases. U.S. companies are encouraged to file trade actions knowing full 
well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S. companies in line 
to receive these payments have a clear incentive to include more 
products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including products not 
even made in the U.S.
      The United States relies on an open global trading system 
for our export sales and our purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment 
undermines the rules-based trading system, invites our trading partners 
to close parts of their markets to U.S. exports in retaliation, and 
increases the cost of imported inputs under antidumping orders.
      The Byrd Amendment is a blatant WTO violation, and U.S. 
trading partners are now imposing or have announced they will impose 
hundreds of millions of dollars in retaliatory duties on U.S. exports. 
The EU and Canada have already imposed sanctions on our exports, Japan 
has announced a target product list, and other plaintiff countries are 
about to do so as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal this 
WTO-illegal measure.

    Given the serious domestic economic and international trade 
problems created by the Byrd Amendment, CWT urges all members of the 
Trade Subcommittee to support inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous tariff bill. This corporate entitlement program is simply 
bad policy and must be repealed before it does further damage to the 
pocketbooks of U.S. consumers. It is essential that it be repealed.
            Yours truly,
                                                      Maureen Smith
                                                          President

                                 

                        Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf of the Consuming Industries Trade Action 
Coalition (``CITAC'') in response to the Subcommittee's request for 
comments on pending miscellaneous tariff and trade legislation (Trade 
Subcommittee Press Release, July 25, 2005). CITAC is a coalition of 
companies and trade associations that supports reform of trade laws and 
policies to take account of the interests of consuming industries in 
America.
    CITAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on HR 1121, 
legislation that would repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act,'' commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. We strongly support 
the inclusion of the Byrd Amendment repeal bill in the Chairman's Mark 
of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. For the reasons stated in this 
letter, the Byrd Amendment should be repealed as quickly as possible.
    This law, in effect since October 2000, has put more than a billion 
taxpayer dollars in the pockets of a very small number of corporations, 
but has not served a larger public policy purpose. It is bad policy 
because it does not require any recipient to perform any worthwhile 
activity and little if any worthwhile activity has resulted from the 
payment of these sums of money.
    In addition, repeal of the Byrd Amendment is required because the 
World Trade Organization (``WTO'') correctly found the Byrd Amendment 
inconsistent with U.S. international obligations. Thus, repeal of the 
Byrd Amendment is both good public policy for the vast majority of U.S. 
manufacturers and is essential for the United States to comply with its 
obligations and to maintain its position of leadership on trade matters 
in the WTO. Repeal is a win-win proposition for the United States.
    Many consuming industries rely on imports of raw materials or 
components to maintain global competitiveness. The Byrd Amendment 
provides a double hit on importers of products subject to antidumping 
and countervailing duties. Importers must pay these duties which, 
because of the ``retrospective'' system of duty collection, are 
uncertain in amount; the risk of high duties discourages imports 
whether or not they are fairly traded and thereby harms consumers. In 
addition, foreign producers must see these duties transferred to their 
U.S. competitors. Thus, U.S. consuming industries are hurt twice: first 
by the uncertain amount of duties discouraging imports, and second by 
the subsidy to competitors, further discouraging imports. Additionally, 
these duties trickle down to the average American consumer and often 
cause them to purchase fewer products. The net result is that imports 
of vital raw materials slow, and economic activity and jobs march 
overseas, putting more Americans out of work.
    Byrd Amendment recipients--naturally interested in maintaining 
their cash flow--argue that enriching them serves a larger public 
interest. We strongly disagree, for the following reasons:
    Despite some protestations to the contrary, the Byrd Amendment 
creates a clear incentive to file antidumping and countervailing duty 
cases. We have seen this in the five years since the law was passed: 
cases that were or are marginal in their marketplace effects, such as 
shrimp, color TVs and wooden bedroom furniture have been filed solely 
or largely to cash in on Byrd Amendment distributions. U.S. companies 
in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to include 
more products within the scope of cases, including products not even 
made in the United States. Consumers see cases filed because of the 
promise of Byrd money (such as the infamous shrimp case). Other cases 
include products not produced here, such as certain antifriction 
bearings (e.g., certain metric sizes and metallurgical requirements); 
and steel wire rod for ``cold-heading'' and manufacture of wire for 
tire cord.
    We reject the idea that comparing the number of petitions filed 
before and after the Byrd Amendment was passed is probative of whether 
the law has created an incentive to file. The prospect of money creates 
the incentive; that cannot be denied. Obviously, the number of 
petitions filed before and after October 2000 was determined by 
prevailing economic conditions. If the number of petitions went down, 
it was not because of the Byrd Amendment, but despite it. We urge the 
Subcommittee similarly to reject the Byrd proponents' specious 
argument.
    Despite its label as the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act,'' the law seems to do little to reduce the level of dumping 
margins. These margins, calculated by the Commerce Department, are 
based on information provided long after importations occur, frequently 
laced with ``facts available'' not based on the respondent's own 
information. If anything, the practices of the Department of Commerce 
have become more draconian and anti-consumer since the Byrd Amendment 
was passed.
    Byrd Amendment funds go to a select few companies. In 2004, more 
than half of the $284 million in distributions went to just nine 
companies. In both 2002 and 2003, more than half the money went to just 
two companies. It is simply not credible that distributions to such a 
narrow group of beneficiaries could make any difference to the U.S. 
manufacturing economy.
    Byrd Amendment distributions treat different U.S. producers 
differently, depending upon whether they supported a petition or not. 
In the candle market, for example, a small number of companies receive 
huge windfalls from the Byrd Amendment, putting all other U.S candle 
makers at a competitive disadvantage.
    The prospect of Byrd Amendment money discourages settlement of 
antidumping and countervailing duty cases through suspension 
agreements, and creates an incentive for petitioners to broaden the 
scope of cases, often including products not even made in the United 
States or made in inadequate quantities. As a result, cases are 
broader, last longer and do more damage to consuming industries.
    Those who filed and support trade petitions are not required to use 
the Byrd money they receive for capital investments, job creation, 
worker retraining or improving U.S. competitiveness. Indeed, there are 
no provisions in the law for any particular use for these funds. These 
companies receive a government handout and may insert the funds 
directly into their bottom lines.
    Byrd Amendment distributions can actually encourage the loss of 
American jobs offshore. Large U.S. Byrd Amendment recipients, for 
example the Timken Company, import products from countries that are 
subject to dumping orders. Their Byrd Amendment distributions can 
offset the dumping duties paid, giving the company an exemption from 
the impact of antidumping laws. They, unlike non-Byrd recipients, can 
import dumped products from their affiliates overseas without having to 
bear the financial burden of antidumping duties, since the U.S. 
government reimburses them.
    Repealing the Byrd Amendment will not undermine the purpose of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The imposition of duties by 
the U.S. government is intended to equalize market conditions in the 
United States. Paying money to private companies has never been the 
purpose of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Repealing the 
Byrd Amendment will leave the original, WTO-legal purpose of these laws 
entirely intact.
    Congress must consider repeal of the Byrd Amendment as quickly as 
possible. The inequities suffered by U.S. consuming industries are real 
and growing. Moreover, the specter of retaliation by our aggrieved 
trading partners is increasing. While the largest annual Byrd Amendment 
distributions totaled a little over $300 million, the possibility of 
softwood lumber duties being distributed would put the United States in 
a position of absorbing nearly $5 billion in retaliation that could 
devastate consuming industries throughout the United States. Congress 
can avoid this looming catastrophe by acting promptly to repeal the 
Byrd Amendment.
    We see no prospect at all for a ``negotiated'' agreement in the WTO 
allowing the Byrd Amendment to become a legitimate antidumping or 
countervailing duty tool. The congressional ``instruction'' to 
``negotiate'' legitimization of the Byrd Amendment has borne no 
results. Moreover, legitimizing the Byrd Amendment at the WTO, even if 
it were possible, would not alter the fact that it is bad policy for 
the United States economy and the American people.
    We urge the Committee to incorporate the legislation introduced by 
Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to 
attach it to any viable legislation to assure its being enacted without 
delay. This bill was adopted in the dead of night--it should be 
repealed in broad daylight with the greatest possible speed.
    We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the 
Subcommittee.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Michael I. Fanning
                                                           Chairman

                                 

                                       Contessa Premium Foods, Inc.
                                        San Pedro, California 90731
                                                    August 31, 2005
Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
United States House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf of Contessa Premium Foods, Inc. 
(``Contessa'') to strongly support H.R. 1121 and your efforts to repeal 
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (the ``Byrd Amendment'').
    The Byrd Amendment has devastating economic effects on a broad 
range of U.S. companies. Many businesses like Contessa have been 
unfairly penalized by alleged ``antidumping'' petitions filed by a 
small number of our competitors and their lawyers who are motivated by 
the Byrd Amendment's lucrative kick backs. Insidiously, the Byrd 
Amendment allows antidumping margin payments to be transferred from us 
to our competitors. It is a blatant subsidy to a very few that must be 
ended.
    The Byrd Amendment is the epitome a domestic policy that has 
totally failed to serve its purpose. In fact, a majority of American 
companies don't derive any benefit from the payments provided. It's 
shocking to know that more than half the Byrd Amendment payments in 
2004 went to only nine (9) companies. Eighty percent (80%) of these 
payments went to only forty-four (44) companies. The handful of 
companies that received payments are not even required to use it to 
take the necessary steps to modernize, improve or be more competitive. 
Although payments are supposed to be used for ``qualified 
expenditures'', such use is not monitored by anyone in Congress. It's 
no wonder the Byrd Amendment is seen as a fabulous windfall for the 
fortunate few.
    The United States economy derives its strength from the support of 
our trading partners. Nevertheless, the Byrd Amendment ironically 
exposes U.S. companies to trade retaliation by these same partners. 
Based on the unfair effects of the Byrd Amendment, other countries are 
compelled to impose the same or similar import duties on U.S. products. 
For example, one of the United States staunchest allies, Japan, has 
already warned that they will be forced to impose at least a fifteen 
percent (15%) duty on U.S. steel and other products. We already know 
that the Byrd Amendment has been ruled unlawful by the World Trade 
Organization, yet we've done nothing to eliminate its prohibited 
practice. Other countries now have the right to impose a total of $150 
million in economic sanctions. We must remove the Byrd Amendment before 
more damage is done.
    The illicit windfall provided by the Byrd Amendment fuels the urge 
to file antidumping petitions. In this sense, lawyers and others have 
recognized that the Byrd Amendment almost automatically guarantees 
large punitive damages against U.S. companies. However, it does nothing 
to ``leveling the playing field''. Instead, the Byrd Amendment makes 
few companies and their attorneys undeservedly rich. This is a 
calculated legal scheme to fleece a majority of American businesses by 
using the Byrd Amendment as its linchpin. Unfortunately, the ultimate 
consequence is that U.S. consumers continue to pay higher and higher 
costs for a wide array of products directly because of the effects of 
the Byrd Amendment. This must end.
    For Contessa, the impact of the Byrd Amendment is very real and 
damaging to our business. Now that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has approved antidumping margins on shrimp imports, Contessa 
must make payments every time we import products for distribution to 
our valued U.S. customers or for further processing in our U.S. based 
production facilities. Adding insult to injury, Contessa and many other 
companies are forced to sit idly by while watching our payments being 
spent by a domestic industry that has failed to modernize or be 
competitive for over twenty (20) years. This is a blatant and unjust 
reward that must be eliminated.
    The Byrd Amendment passed without adequate consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress. It continues to inflict injury on 
many American companies just like Contessa while unjustly benefiting a 
few. It is extremely important for Congress to realize this fact and 
take action to do away with the Byrd Amendment.
    Contessa and our many U.S. employees strongly urge you to include 
H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill during this secession of 
Congress. Please do not hesitate to let me know what we can do to help 
make H.R. 1121 a reality.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Gregory J. Morrow
                                                    General Counsel

                                 
                                                 Copeland Furniture
                                            Bradford, Vermont 05033
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Our industry has been inundated with a virtual flood of unfairly 
priced imports from China over the last 5 years. Over the long-haul 
market forces can correct this condition, but only if the American 
wooden bedroom furniture industry survives this onslaught of subsidized 
dumping. CDSOA distributions are a crucial component to the effort of 
maintaining U.S. manufacturing jobs in the interim. Without the CDSOA 
remedy, more jobs will evaporate--in addition to the 18,000 already 
lost. If that happens, it is difficult to imagine a scenario whereby 
the furniture industry jobs will be restored in this country. The 
individuals who do those jobs have developed unique skill sets, which 
are not particularly transferable to other professions outside of 
woodwork manufacturing. In many cases their only options would be to 
step down to lower paying service jobs, or worse yet, become 
unemployed.
    The rapidity with which this dumping activity has grown to its 
current scale is extraordinary. Since 1999 imports from China have 
rapidly increased their share of the U.S. market. It is not realistic 
to expect individual American companies to weather this onslaught of 
unfair competition without some modest level of remedy.
    Our company, Copeland Furniture, is located in Bradford, Vermont. 
We employ 100 people. The impact of unfairly dumped wooden bedroom 
furniture has impacted us in two distinct ways: 1.) Over the last 
several years we have seen 35% of our business displaced by unfairly 
priced imports. 2.) Consumer price expectations have become 
increasingly denominated by product that is subsidized by the Chinese 
government. Our strategy to compete has been to offer superior design, 
continually improve quality and service and to cater to a segment of 
the market that values design higher quality domestically made product. 
We've been successful in that we have managed to replace the sales 
volume lost to dumped product. However, like most of the rest of the 
industry, the flood of low priced products has made necessary price 
increases a very difficult sell, putting a tremendous strain on our 
bottom line.
    CDSOA distributions will be a critical component to Copeland 
Furniture's survival and to the jobs it provides. The management and 
employees of Copeland Furniture strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its 
inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
            Yours truly,
                                                Timothy E. Copeland

                                 

                           Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This statement is submitted on behalf of the Copper & Brass 
Fabricators Council, Inc. and its member companies to express the 
Council's opposition to the passage as a part of the Miscellaneous 
Tariff Bill of H.R. 1121 calling for the repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) and H.R. 2473 which would alter 
the calculation of the ``all others'' rate in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases in a way that would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    The Copper and Brass Fabricators Council is a trade association 
that represents the principal copper and brass mills in the United 
States. The 20 member companies together account for the fabrication of 
more than 80% of all copper and brass mill products produced in the 
United States, including sheet, strip, plate, foil, bar, rod, and both 
plumbing and commercial tube. These products are used in a wide variety 
of applications, chiefly in automotive, construction, and electrical/
electronic industries.
    Council member companies employ more than 14,000 workers in good 
paying jobs. Appendix A lists the members of the Council and the 
addresses and congressional district of each headquarters and 
manufacturing facility operated by Council members together with the 
number of workers at each location. Also attached is Appendix B which 
contains legal analysis supportive of the Council's position.
    CDSOA enables Council members injured by unfair foreign trade to 
invest in their own companies and workers. Under CDSOA, import duties 
are distributed to U.S. manufacturers and workers who have supported 
successful trade cases against unfairly traded imports when dumping or 
unfair subsidization continues after an order is issued. All Council 
member companies have benefited from CDSOA distributions.
    For those anxious to end CDSOA distributions the solution is simple 
and does not require legislation; simply stop illegal dumping and 
subsidies.
    With respect to the CDSOA decision in which the WTO improperly 
overstepped its authority, in FY 2004 and FY 2005 both Houses of 
Congress directed the Bush Administration to negotiate a solution to 
the problem. Pursuant to those directives the Administration has stated 
to the WTO that it was ``beyond question that countries have the 
sovereign right to distribute government revenues as they deem 
appropriate''. That is all CDSOA does, it does not change legally 
authorized dumping and countervailing duties by a single penny.
    There is also a mistaken belief that the WTO found the CDSOA to be 
an illegal subsidy. The claim that the CDSOA was an actionable subsidy 
causing adverse trade effects was, however, rejected by the WTO panel 
and not appealed.
    Similarly, those who are opposed to CDSOA make the claim that it 
provides an incentive for domestic companies to file baseless 
antidumping or countervailing duty petitions. Such claims are simply 
unsupported by the record. The highest number of cases filed in recent 
years occurred in 1992, eight years prior to passage of the CDSOA. Case 
volumes since CDSOA became law are comparable in number to the volume 
filed before the law. The main influence on case volume actually 
appears to be the general level of economic activity in a given market 
with weak economic conditions giving rise to a higher level of case 
filings. In the last six months of 2004 only five cases were filed and 
that trend has continued in 2005. Nor is there any indication that 
court challenges to the ITC and DOC proceedings have increased thus 
disproving an alleged rise in so-called frivolous lawsuits.
    The Trade Act of 2002 highlighted the ongoing pattern of 
overreaching by the WTO which is creating obligations never agreed to 
by the United States. The Congress and the Administration should 
continue working to ensure that the WTO dispute regarding CDSOA is 
resolved in ongoing negotiations in Geneva. The Council and its member 
companies strongly oppose repeal or modification of CDSOA in the U.S. 
Congress.
    We appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter 
which is of great importance to the Council and its members.
            Very truly yours,
                                                    Joseph L. Mayer
                                        President & General Counsel

                                 

                                                       Council Tool
                                Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina 28450
                                                    August 30, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I am writing on behalf of Council Tool Company Inc. and the 50 some 
families whose livelihood is derived from this operation. Located in 
Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina, we are a family owned and managed 
manufacturing firm which produces heavy forged hand tools. We have 
provided continuous employment in this area since 1886.
    Please let the record show that all stockholders, managers and hard 
working employees of this company strongly oppose H.R. 1121 in the 2005 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which calls for the repeal of CDSOA as well 
as H.R. 2473 which alters calculation of the ``all others'' rate in 
certain cases. Both of these bills are detrimental to the interests of 
Council Tool Company and specifically it's employees as well as 
domestic manufacturing in general.
    Council Tool is able to benefit from CDSOA because of an ITC ruling 
in 1991 declaring much of the product produced in mainland China to be 
dumped and the domestic industry injured. Subsequently we have suffered 
through and to date weathered unfair Chinese competition for at least 
fifteen (15) years. Many of our domestic competitors have not. They are 
out of business or sent the manufacturing jobs offshore.
    We have only recently benefited from a distribution and I can 
unequivocally state that our operation is much more stable and becoming 
more efficient as a result of the benefits of same. With the exception 
of state and federal income taxes, virtually one hundred (100) percent 
of the income this company received under our one distribution has 
stayed in the operation. For example:

      We strengthened our balance sheet, allowing the company 
to survive unprecedented metal, energy and transportation markets over 
the last 18 months or so. Steel is the largest material component in 
much of our product line. Because of the time lag in passing along 
dramatically increased costs--steel, fuel oil, electricity, propane, 
motor freight--this created significant margin problems. CDSOA funds 
allowed us to weather the aforementioned market conditions without 
adverse debt costs.
      We were able to acquire several new pieces of induction 
heating equipment which we simply would not have considered without the 
monetary distribution. With induction heating we are able to heat steel 
to high temperatures electrically very quickly as opposed to fuel fired 
furnaces. This increases the pace of the operation, reduces the actual 
cost of heating the steel and is certainly a more comfortable 
atmosphere for the operators of the equipment. This type of equipment, 
while more efficient and productive--is not inexpensive. Acquisition 
costs of new equipment of this sort are several hundred thousand 
dollars each plus installation and ramp up costs. With CDSOA funds we 
were able to purchase several new units--not used--and we purchased 
sizes we needed, not what we could get by with. Faced with extremely 
thin to non-existent margins (due to imported products of Chinese 
origin) we would not have considered this without the CDSOA funds.
      Additionally because of the distribution, we were able to 
acquire--without debt--several pieces of ancillary equipment used in 
the production of our tooling. Precision surface grinders and cadcam 
software. These are new, current technology, and capable of delivering 
increased precision and repeatability to our tooling efforts. The 
operation is stronger and more stable as a result.

    We are confident there are no more than three operations left in 
the U.S. which produce similar products. All are involved with CDSOA 
and although I certainly do not pretend to speak for them, I can easily 
imagine that there would be less than three remaining without CDSOA. In 
addition to traditional channels of distribution, we manufacture items 
under contract for the U.S. Forest Service, General Services 
Administration as well as various military specialty requirements. 
While these products may not be considered ``high tech'', they are 
necessary and vital and it would seem important that some degree of 
this kind of manufacturing technology remain in this country. For 
information purposes, several months back, we responded to an internet 
solicitation from a comparable Chinese manufacturer. We asked for 
pricing for several completed products. The f.o.b. China port pricing 
was generally less than or within a few cents of our domestic steel 
component cost. Without CDSOA, this could be considered impossible 
competition.
    It is my hope and the hope of all of our taxpaying employees and 
that Congress will actively support domestic manufacturing. The 
conditions under which domestic employers must attempt to remain 
competitive with foreign, particularly Asian firms and most 
particularly mainland China make it increasingly difficult to compete. 
Continued environmental and safety regulation ``creep'' along with 
sharply increased costs for employer provided group health insurance 
and employer provided workers compensation insurance are a few issues 
which come to mind. I can only provide an opinion into my small 
industry. Repeal of or weakening of CDSOA will only have negative 
consequences on those U.S. citizens currently employed here producing 
heavy forged hand tools. In our case, we have a large portion of our 
workforce with seniority of fifteen (15) to thirty (30) years. These 
people work HARD. We hope that Congress will look out for their 
interests and for the interests of other U.S. manufacturers who provide 
basic manufacturing employment in this country.
    Free trade is good public policy. Unless the playing field is 
relatively level, it is not fair trade. It seems to us that what CDSOA 
is doing is allowing injured U.S. manufacturers to continue to exist, 
strengthen their operations and continue to provide employment with 
benefits to American citizens.
    North Carolina has been a particularly hard hit state in recent 
years due to the significant migration of manufacturing jobs to other 
countries. Our county (Columbus) has been designated economically 
depressed. As we have for the last one hundred and nineteen (119) 
years, we want to continue to manufacture products of superior quality 
and value. In this way we can continue to provide jobs and stability in 
our community.
    Thanking you in advance for allowing us to contribute to this 
process.
            Sincerely,
                                                John M. Council III
                                                          President

                                 

                                       Crawfish Processors Alliance
                                     Breaux Bridge, Louisiana 70517
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the Crawfish Processors Alliance (``CPA'') and its 25 
member companies, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the 
inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is an extremely 
controversial measure that would repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). Such a measure has no place in 
a ``technical corrections'' bill.
    The CPA's members are processors in Louisiana of freshwater 
crawfish tail meat, a mainstay of Cajun cuisine and an important part 
of Louisiana's unique culture. The financial health of the crawfish 
processing industry translates directly into substantial investment in 
local employment, new purchases of equipment, jobs for employees in the 
processing plants, and income for the many independent fishermen in 
Louisiana who supply the plants with live crawfish. Repeal of the CDSOA 
would bring immediate and catastrophic harm to Louisiana's families and 
communities at a time when they already must face the challenge of 
rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina.
    In 1997, the U.S. Department of Commerce found that Chinese 
crawfish exporters were engaging in illegal international price 
discrimination by ``dumping'' their merchandise in the U.S. market at 
prices of $3.00 or less per pound. The same year, the U.S. 
International Trade Commission determined that such dumping had caused 
material injury to Louisiana's domestic crawfish industry, which had 
typically sold the product at $5.00 to $7.00 per pound. Consequently, 
an antidumping duty order was issued in September 1997, imposing 
antidumping duties of up to 201.63% (later increased to 223.01%) in 
order to neutralize the harmful effects of the price discrimination.
    Prior to enactment of the CDSOA, many domestic processors lost 
their businesses as their Chinese competitors continued to engage in 
dumping despite the high duty rates. With prices for tail meat so low, 
crawfish harvesters who had previously supplied the processors saw the 
bottom drop out of the market for their live crawfish as well. The 
damage caused to families throughout Louisiana's crawfish country was 
widespread and deep. The CDSOA, enacted in 2000, has played a crucial 
role in reversing these trends.
    For the Chinese exporters who object to the distribution of duties 
under the CDSOA, there is a simple solution: stop dumping. The 
antidumping law allows every importer to reduce its antidumping duty to 
zero upon showing that the affected merchandise was not, in fact, sold 
at a dumped price. Monetary distributions to affected domestic 
producers are possible only when the foreign exporters insist on 
continuing their dumping behavior--a behavior that has been disfavored 
for decades under GATT/WTO rules.
    A miscellaneous trade bill, traditionally used for bundling 
product--or country-specific duty suspension measures and 
uncontroversial technical corrections, is an improper vehicle for 
addressing the efficacy and appropriateness of the CDSOA. Moreover, the 
Administration is currently engaged in negotiations in Geneva regarding 
a U.S. proposal to clarify WTO rules to ensure that the CDSOA is 
regarded as WTO-consistent, and Congress has specifically directed the 
Administration to negotiate a solution to this issue as part of the 
Doha Round. Thus, the proposal to repeal the CDSOA not only is 
inappropriate in the context of a ``technical corrections'' bill but 
also is premature and undermines the credibility of the Administration 
in ongoing trade negotiations.
    Louisiana's hard-working families and small businesses, already 
ravaged by Katrina, can ill afford the additional economic devastation 
that passage of H.R. 1121 would create. At a minimum, their concerns 
are entitled to a full and fair hearing and should not be swept 
carelessly under the rug of the ``technical corrections'' rubric. We 
therefore request that H.R. 1121 be excluded from the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
                                                    Adam J. Johnson
                                                          President
                                 ______
                                 
Members of the Crawfish Processors Alliance:

A&S Crawfish
Eunice, LA 70535

Acadiana Fishermen's Cooperative
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

Arnaudville Seafood Plant
Arnaudville, LA 70512

Atchafalaya Crawfish Processors
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

Bayou Land Seafood, LLC
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

Bellard's Crawfish Plant, Inc.
Opelousas, LA 70570

Blanchard's Seafood, Inc.
St. Martinvillle, LA 70582

Bonanza Crawfish Farm, Inc.
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

CJL Enterprise, Inc.
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

Cajun Seafood Distributor, Inc.
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

Catahoula Crawfish, Inc.
St. Martinville, LA 70582

Choplin Seafood
Duson, LA 70529

Clearwater Crawfish, L.L.C.
St. Martinville, LA 70582

Crawfish Enterprises, Inc.
Eunice, LA 70535

Dugas Seafood
St. Martinville, LA 70582

Harvey's Seafood
Abbeville, LA 70510

Louisiana Seafood Co.
St. Martinville, LA 70582

L.T. West, Inc.
Mamou, LA 70554

Phillips' Seafood
Bayou Pigeon, LA 70764

Prairie Cajun Wholesale Distributors
Eunice, LA 70535

Randol, Inc.
Lafayette, LA 70508

Riceland Crawfish, Inc.
Eunice, LA 70535

Seafood International, Inc.
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517

Sylvester's Crawfish
Bunkie, LA 71322

Teche Valley Seafood
St. Martinville, LA 70582

                                 

                                                   Dak Americas LLC
                                    Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    DAK Americas LLC strongly opposes the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills currently being proposed. DAK Americas, like many 
other companies in the U.S., is working hard to stay competitive and 
successful in the ever-challenging global trade environment present 
today. The essence of fair trade is the foundation of the U.S. economy 
and that which drives trade laws that are enacted to protect the many 
facets of trade itself. Repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act (``CDSOA'') is yet another action that would disadvantage the very 
industries and companies that have already suffered from the results of 
unfair trade practices in international trade.
    Is it not enough that industries and companies in the U.S. must 
actively police their own markets for signs of lost business and sales 
resulting from unfair trade practices of importers? Is it not enough 
that on top of losing sales and revenue to unfair pricing and trade 
practices that industries and companies must then bear the burden of 
significant cost and time to defend their businesses against trade 
violators before the Department of Commerce and the International Trade 
Commission? And lastly, is it not enough that once the unfair practices 
have been defined and acknowledged by the appropriate governmental 
agencies and penalties put in place that the victims of these acts of 
unfair trading be justly compensated in a fair and timely manner for 
the losses they have suffered that undermine their ability to remain 
competitive?
    Enough is enough! Please continue to support U.S. Business and 
Industry and at the same time continue to open up the U.S. Economy to 
World Trade. ``Fair'' competition is not feared and what is fair is 
that those who violate our international trade laws pay a penalty and 
those who suffer losses from unfair trade actions should continue 
receive due compensation for the actions that were taken to protect 
their very businesses and markets.
    Furthermore, It is our belief that it is a duty of Congress to 
actively support and protect manufacturing jobs in the U.S. against 
unfair trade practices. Rejecting efforts to repeal the CDSOA is indeed 
one of the best ways of supporting such a duty. Moreover, it is theU.S. 
government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by 
Congress by fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization.
    DAK Americas LLC is a company of over 750 people with manufacturing 
operations primarily located in the Southeastern U.S., in the 
Carolinas. As producers of Textile Fibers, PET Bottle Resins and 
Chemical based raw materials (Monomers), our products touch the lifes 
of many people and industries. Our Fibers are used in Apparel, Home 
Furnishings, Non-Wovens and Industrial applications. PET Bottle Resins 
produced by DAK Americas are used to make the bottles of many of the 
well-known brands of Carbonated Soft Drinks and Bottled Waters in the 
consumer markets today. The raw materials we manufacture are used both 
in house and as merchant sales for various feed streams for chemical 
processes.
    The recent lifting of quotas on many textile related products has 
already forced our company to make huge changes in the quest to remain 
competitive and keep our businesses both profitable and operational. We 
have followed recent trade regulations and laws and are continuing to 
improve our operational plans to remain competitive. We are up for the 
challenge and can remain an active player in a fair and competitive 
manner. The fact is that CDSOA exist does not affect ``fair'' trade and 
is a safeguard to level the playing field. Fairly traded imports are 
not affected by the CDSOA, unfair trade is made fair.
    We have participated in CDSOA distributions for the fiber side of 
your business since 2001 and have received nearly $700,000 in 
compensation to date. DAK Americas has used these funds to continue to 
both maintain and improve the physical assets of our operations that 
have allowed us to remain competitive with increased efficiency and 
capacity. Without these funds, these improvements would be more limited 
in scope and frequency.
    Any bill seeking to repeal CDSOA operates to harm the groups most 
damaged and effected by the unfair trade practices makes absolutely no 
sense. These distributions strengthen the fairness of the playing field 
and allow our industry to mount a fair competitive battle for business. 
To define the need for the repeal of this bill as a ``technical 
correction'' to current law is nothing more than handing over many U.S. 
Businesses to unfair foreign competition.
    Accordingly, DAK Americas requests that you please accept these 
comments for consideration and remove H.R. 1121 from the Miscellaneous 
Tariff Bill (MTB). Furthermore, DAK opposes inclusion of HR 2473 in the 
MTB as well.
    With great appreciation for your time on this subject,
            Sincerely,
                                               Richard A. Lane, Jr.
                                   Public Affairs & Trade Relations

                                 

                                              Eagle Materials, Inc.
                                                Dallas, Texas 75219
                                                    August 24, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Eagle Materials Inc. and its approximately 1,600 
employees to express our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 
1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous 
Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that 
would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). 
It can by no means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to 
existing law.
    Eagle Materials Inc. is a manufacturer of basic building materials 
including cement, concrete, gypsum wallboard and aggregates. Our cement 
operations include plants in the Austin, Texas area (through a joint 
venture), Fernley, Nevada, LaSalle, Illinois and Laramie, Wyoming. We 
also have ready-mix operations in the Austin, Texas area and Northern 
California.
    In the late 1980's, we experienced first hand the severe damage 
caused by dumped imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices 
of Mexican cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any 
incentive to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States 
imposed antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, 
the dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
                                                   Steven R. Rowley

                                 

                                                   Embassy of Chile
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                    August 28, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    Commenting on the proposed contents of the miscellaneous trade 
legislation to be discussed by the Sub-Committee on Trade of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, which you chair, I would like to 
communicate the strong support of the Government of Chile for H.R. 
1121, the bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
of 2000 (CDSOA), also known as the ``Byrd Amendment''.
    The CDSOA has been reviewed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
in 2003 and proved to be inconsistent with United States obligations 
under the WTO Agreements covering anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties. Since the U.S. has failed to bring itself into compliance with 
the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) resolution regarding the CDSOA in 
late 2003, eight countries-including Chile--have been authorized by the 
WTO to impose retaliatory duties on U.S. imports. Three of these 
countries and the European Union have already done so.
    The CDSOA imposes a double punishment for exporters affected by 
anti-dumping measures. Not only do they face an extra duty, but they 
also confront a stronger competition because of the disbursement of 
these duties to the very same firms that requested and supported the 
initial trade remedy measure. As a result, the CDSOA not only distorts 
trade, but also affects domestic competition.
    The CDSOA has had negative consequences for international trade. 
Chile has been affected by anti-dumping duties resulting from actions 
taken under the CDSOA that have affected industries which are highly 
dependent on trade, mainly with the U.S. These measures have been 
especially burdensome for small, low income farm related businesses, as 
is the case for raspberry producers.
    The Dispute Settlement Body is a fundamental pillar to the 
multilateral trading system. It brings predictability, not only to 
nations and multinational corporations, but also to small firms which 
are highly dependent on trade. Chile considers, for this reason, that 
the failure by the United States to comply with WTO obligations hurts 
the interests of all members of the multilateral trading system.
    Chile strongly believes that repeal is the only means by which the 
U.S. can comply with the DSB resolution regarding the CDSOA. For that 
reason we support prompt enactment of Bill H.R. 1121.
                                                     Andres Bianchi
                                                Ambassador of Chile

                                 

                                                   Embassy of India
                                               Washington, DC 20008
                                                  September 2, 2005
Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Chairman,
Sub-Committee on Trade,
Ways and Means Committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

    India welcomes the inclusion into miscellaneous trade legislation 
Bill HR 1121 on repeal of Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(CDSOA), also known as Byrd Amendment.
    The CDSOA has been examined in the WTO and ruled by the Dispute 
Settlement Body (DSB) to be consistent with U.S. obligations under the 
WTO agreements covering anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Since 
the U.S. has not brought itself into compliance with the WTO DSB ruling 
regarding the CDSOA, eight countries, including India, have been 
authorized by the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations in 
respect of the United States. Some countries have already commenced 
exercise of these retaliatory rights against the United States.
    The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is a fundamental pillar of the 
multilateral trading system. It brings predictability and security to 
the multilateral trading system. Its credibility depends on the strict 
observance of its recommendations and rulings by its Members. We would 
prefer full compliance by the U.S. with the DSB decision rather than 
suspension of concessions and other obligations under the authorization 
obtained by it from the DSB. India, therefore, urges early repeal of 
the Byrd Amendment.
                                                          Ronen Sen
                                                         Ambassador

                                 

                                        Empress International, Ltd.
                                    Port Washington, New York 11050
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the Empress International, Ltd., I would like to thank 
you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal 
the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly 
known as the Byrd Amendment. Our organization supports this 
legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    ASDA is an organization of U.S. seafood importers, distributors, 
wholesalers, retailers, and food trade associations that are dedicated 
to free and fair trade in seafood. Our organization's membership is 
comprised of 75 companies across the United States with average annual 
sales of approximately $25 million each. Domestic industries that 
depend on seafood imports are an important contributor to the U.S. 
economy. ASDA opposes tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions 
that interrupt the supply or interfere with the affordability of all 
seafood products.
    To supply ample amounts of shrimp for families to enjoy at our 
nation's restaurants or find at grocery stores and other retail 
outlets, ASDA members rely on imported products.
    We strongly believe that the group of domestic seafood processors 
that filed an anti-dumping petition with the Commerce Department and 
the U.S. International Trade Commission against imported shrimp from 
six countries was primarily motivated by the prospect of receiving Byrd 
money. In fact, we have flyers from law firms representing the 
shrimpers marketing the prospect of Byrd monies that were used to 
recruit petitioners for the shrimp case. Far from changing their 
business strategy to keep up with their global competitors, as we have 
encouraged the domestic industry to do for years, we strongly believe 
that the petition was filed in order to pave the way for receiving 
millions of dollars in special interest payments through the Byrd 
Amendment.
    Byrd payments were so prominent in the motivation for this case 
that when the shrimp processors later moved to have fresh shrimp 
removed from the scope of the investigation, shrimpers that catch fresh 
shrimp launched a lawsuit against the processors to protect their Byrd 
monies.
    We also believe that the domestic shrimpers' opposition to the 
current ITC Changed Circumstance Investigation for shrimp imports from 
Thailand and India, initiated by the ITC because of the devastation 
caused by the December 2004 Tsunami, is based on the fear of losing 
Byrd monies.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on shrimp imports 
from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand and Vietnam, ASDA members 
not only must pay the duties but also see the monies in the future 
transferred to the domestic industry as a reward for filing their 
lawsuit. U.S. businesses are thus sent the wrong message from our 
government; that trade protectionism makes for a better business plan 
than modernization.
    The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. Move than 
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine 
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 
companies nationwide.
    U.S. producers in a wide variety of sectors are now filing trade 
actions because they know they will be eligible for Byrd money. In this 
sense, the Byrd Amendment adds additional punitive damage-like 
incentives to file cases, in that a victory enriches the filer beyond 
simply ``leveling the playing field''. U.S. companies in line to 
receive these payments also have a clear incentive to include more 
products within the scope of anti-dumping cases and to oppose ever 
eliminating any duty for fear of losing the Byrd money.
    The Byrd Amendment is simply bad domestic policy. The members of 
the domestic shrimp industry who filed the trade petition will not be 
required to use Byrd monies that they receive to take the steps 
necessary to modernize or improve their competitiveness. Instead, they 
can count on receiving a government handout for every subject shrimp 
imported into this country.
    The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies. We request that you include H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous trade bill and appreciate the opportunity to comment on 
this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Timothy McLellan
                                                          President

                                 

                                 European Chemical Industry Council
                                                  Brussels, Belgium
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    Cefic would like to express its strong support for the inclusion of 
H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act (CDSOA), in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    The European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, is the forum and the 
voice of the chemical industry in Europe, representing--directly or 
indirectly--about 27.000 chemical companies. In 2004, EU chemical 
exports to the U.S. amounted to 26.8 billion, while EU 
chemical imports from the U.S. amounted to 18.8 billion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This data excludes pharmaceuticals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cefic has called for the repeal of the CDSOA (aka Byrd Amendment) 
since it was signed into law in 2000. Cefic supports the repeal of the 
Byrd Amendment because:

    -- The Byrd Amendment clearly violates WTO agreements as found by 
the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. The failure of the U.S. to comply 
fully in a timely manner with its WTO obligations is damaging to the 
credibility and effective functioning of the rule-based trading 
system--with potentially wide-ranging effects for an open global 
trading system. In addition, the U.S. failure to comply with its WTO 
obligations has forced various U.S. trading partners to impose 
retaliatory measures which are undermining the principle of free trade.
    -- The Byrd Amendment distorts trade and fair competition. The 
competitiveness of the EU exporters and the fair competition restored 
by the imposition of U.S. anti-dumping or countervailing duties is 
undermined by the subsidies paid to U.S. producers from the anti-
dumping and countervailing duties collected.
    -- The Byrd amendment creates a powerful and inappropriate 
incentive for U.S. companies to file anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty cases, knowing that they will be eligible for disbursements of the 
duties resulting thereof. Furthermore, U.S. companies in line to 
receive these payments have a clear incentive to include more products 
within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including products not even 
made in the U.S.
    -- Finally, as only petitioners and supporters of dumping and 
subsidy cases will be eligible for duty disbursements, more competitive 
domestic producers, who often prefer not to be a party to the 
proceedings, are put at a comparative disadvantage.

    Given the wide-ranging problems created by the Byrd Amendment, 
Cefic urges all members of the Trade Subcommittee to support the 
inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous tariff bill.
            Yours sincerely,
                                                    Rene van Sloten
                  Director, International Trade and Competitiveness

                                 

                                     European Commission Delegation
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    The European Union welcomes the opportunity to comment on, and 
supports the inclusion into a miscellaneous trade legislation of the 
bill H.R. 1121 repealing Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Section 754 was enacted by the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``Byrd Amendment''). This act is at the heart 
of a major dispute in the World Trade Organisation (``WTO'') opposing 
the United States and its main trading partners, including the European 
Union. Its repeal would remove a serious trade irritant that prejudices 
the United States' trade relations and its credibility as a reliable 
partner in the WTO.
The CDSOA is a blatant breach of the letter and spirit of the WTO rules
    The enactment of the CDSOA raised immediate and widespread concerns 
not only in the European Union but in the whole WTO membership. 11 
members (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EU, India, Indonesia, 
Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand) brought a complaint under the 
dispute settlement proceeding and were supported by 5 other members 
(Argentina, Costa Rica, Hong Kong (China), Israel, Norway). It was the 
first time in the history of the Organisation that so many members 
joined forces to challenge a measure taken by another member.
    There was no doubt that the CDSOA was contrary to the basic 
obligation to limit action against dumping or subsidisation to the 
remedies specifically available under the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 
agreements (i.e. duties on imports of the dumped or subsidised goods, 
undertakings on minimum import prices or, in the case of a subsidy, 
multilaterally sanctioned countermeasures). The CDSOA distributes the 
collected anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to the companies that 
brought or supported those trade remedy cases. Thereby, the CDSOA 
imposes a second hit on dumped or subsidised products: domestic 
producers are, first, protected by anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties 
and, second they receive subsidies paid from these duties at the 
expense of their competitors. This overcompensates the dumping or 
subsidisation and upsets the fair competition previously restored by 
the imposition of duties to the detriment of exporters, U.S. importers, 
U.S. consuming industries and U.S. producers that are not eligible to 
the CDSOA payments. The Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO fully 
confirmed this legal assessment in a widely expected decision in 
January 2003.
The limitation of the remedies available against dumping or 
        subsidisation is a cornerstone obligation of the WTO and must 
        remain
    The European Union is aware of requests to negotiate rules in the 
WTO that would ``legalize'' the CDSOA and wishes to express its total 
opposition to such negotiations.
    Such a change of the WTO rule-book would be fundamentally misguided 
and against the interests of all WTO members including of the United 
States'. The limitation of the remedies available is one of the 
obligations that maintain the delicate balance between trade 
liberalisation and a legitimate protection of national industries 
against unfair competition.
    The inevitable consequence of authorizing multilaterally the 
disbursement of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties to subsidize 
the national competitors of the exporters would be a proliferation of 
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duty actions, which would have a major 
negative impact on world trade, including on U.S. exports.
    The European Union wishes to draw the attention of the Committee to 
statistics published by the WTO on the anti-dumping activity over the 
last 10 years (1995-2004).\1\ They show that the United States has been 
over that period the third most targeted WTO member in terms of 
initiation of anti-dumping investigations and the fourth most targeted 
member in terms of anti-dumping measures imposed. A legalization of a 
redistribution mechanism such as the CDSOA would therefore not be in 
the interest of the U.S. producers as they would be hit next in their 
export markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Available on the WTO website at: http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The repeal of the CDSOA does not affect the ability of the United 
        States to protect its industry from unfair competition
    The CDSOA is an ``added piece'' to the United States' system of 
protection against dumping or subsidisation. Repealing it would leave 
this system unaffected and would therefore not affect the United 
States' ability to provide to its companies and workers a legitimate 
protection against unfair competition. The imposition of anti-dumping 
and anti-subsidy duties (or other remedies specifically authorised by 
the relevant WTO agreements) ensures the required protection.
    The CDSOA was also presented as the adequate way to respond to 
continued dumping and subsidisation which prevents market prices from 
returning to fair levels and frustrates the remedial purpose of the 
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties. It may happen that dumping or 
subsidisation increases over time and that the duty initially imposed 
becomes insufficient to neutralise it but other adequate legal 
recourses are and will continue to be available. Thus, WTO rules allow 
for the review of the level of the duty and the retroactive application 
of the revised duty rate, thereby cancelling out any unfair competitive 
advantage that could result from increasing the level of dumping or 
subsidisation.
    These rules are implemented in U.S. legislation by Section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 which allows United States' companies to 
require every year a review of the duty, which result will be applied 
retroactively.
Ignoring the DSB ruling and recommendation fundamentally affects the 
        United States' interests
    The United States had 11 months (until 27 December 2003) to bring 
its legislation into conformity with the WTO rules, but the deadline 
expired without any concrete signs of forthcoming compliance with the 
WTO ruling. This has been even more disturbing that messages were 
repeatedly heard that the United States would consider respecting its 
obligations only if subject to substantial sanctions or would even 
choose to neglect international law. In such circumstances, the 
European Union saw no other option than to request the authorisation to 
retaliate against the United States. Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, 
Japan, Korea and Mexico came to the same conclusion.
    The European Union started the application of retaliatory measures 
on 1 May 2005 in the form of a 15% additional import duty on a range of 
U.S. products including paper and textile products, machinery and sweet 
corn. In accordance with the arbitration award, the level of 
retaliation will be revised annually and new products may then become 
subject to retaliation. Canada has also applied a 15% additional import 
duty on live swine, tobacco, oysters, specialty fish originating in the 
United States since 1 May 2005. Japan recently announced that it would 
apply a 15% additional duty on certain U.S. products as from 1 
September 2005 and Mexico has just published a decree applying 
retaliatory measures on certain U.S. products as from 18 August. The 
other complainants are taking preparatory steps to exercise their 
retaliation rights in the WTO. Domestic requirements impose different 
calendars, but all may apply retaliation at any time they deem 
appropriate as all required steps in the WTO have now been completed.
    Again, this is the first time in the history of the WTO that so 
many members are authorised to impose retaliatory measures. More 
tellingly, these eight members represent the major trading partners of 
the United States with 71% of total U.S. exports and 64% of total U.S. 
imports. This illustrates again the reality of the Byrd amendment 
dispute: a U.S./rest of the world problem.
    By contrast, the legislation at the root of this dispute only 
benefits a handful of companies. Two companies have received more than 
one third of the money distributed so far (i.e. more than U.S. $366 
million out of the roughly U.S. $1 billion disbursed in the first four 
distributions) and every year half of the payments went to a very 
limited number of companies (4 in 2001, 3 in 2002, 2 in 2003 and 9 in 
2004).
    On a systemic point of view, the dispute settlement system is a 
fundamental pillar of the WTO. It provides security and predictability 
to the multilateral trading system. Its credibility depends on its 
strict observance by the members. The failure of the United States, one 
of the world's leading trading nations, to comply fully in timely 
manner with its WTO obligations is damaging to the credibility and 
effective functioning of the rules-based trading system. Undermining 
WTO disciplines harms the interests of all Members, including those of 
the United States.
    The European Union trusts that the Committee will appreciate the 
utmost importance for the United States to abide by its WTO obligations 
and repeal the CDSOA without further delay.
                                                  Angelos Pangratis
                                            Charge d'Affaires, a.i.

                                 

    Statement of European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries
    On behalf of the company and national association members listed in 
the attachment, Eurofer appreciates this opportunity to comment on H.R. 
1121, a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act 
of 2000 (Section 754 of the Tariff act of 1930, as amended). 
Collectively, Eurofer represents almost 20 percent of global steel 
production. As producers, exporters, and importers of steel products to 
the United States, we have been adversely affected by the ``Byrd 
Amendment.'' We therefore support the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous tariff bill and its enactment at the earliest possible 
time.
    Our position rests on the following considerations:

      Section 754 distorts international trade. The massive 
refund of antidumping and countervailing duties affords a financial 
incentive to U.S. industries to file trade law actions, to broaden the 
scope of such cases (sometimes including products not produced in the 
United States), and to engage in harassing tactics to ensure the 
continuation of orders with the greatest possible margins. This erodes 
the competitiveness of U.S. consuming industries. In addition, these 
incentives run counter to the intended purpose of the trade laws--to 
remedy the injury caused by dumping and subsidiesthrough the assessment 
of dumping or countervailing duties, minimum import price undertakings 
or, in the case of subsidies, sanctioned counter measures. They provide 
a punitive double remedy inconsistent with World Trade Organization 
(WTO) rules that were established by negotiation and approved by the 
U.S. Congress by subsidizing domestic producers with cash infusions to 
the detriment of their foreign competitors. This is a double hit to 
companies competing on a global level. First, the exported goods of 
these companies are subject to duties paid by the USA importer, and 
second, the same companies see these duty payments then transferred to 
their USA competitors.
      The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few 
companies which has a particularly distortive impact on steel trade. 
More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine 
companies, and more than 80% of the payments went to only 44 companies. 
U.S. steelmakers reaped around $58 million in 2004, more than 20% of 
the total of around $284 million in the same year. The U.S. steel 
industry is therefore a particular beneficiary of this massive 
refunding. This programme must be seen as a specific subsidy and is the 
subject of the prohibition which is being sought by all major steel 
producing countries in the world, including the USA, in the framework 
of the OECD discussions on the Steel Subsidy Agreement (SSA).
      Section 754 has been found to be in violation of U.S. 
obligations under the WTO agreements.
      The United States has exhausted its appeals under the WTO 
dispute settlement process. A panel of experts ruled against the United 
States. That decision was ratified by the Appellate Body. Under the 
rules, the United States had 11 months--to December 27, 2003--to bring 
its statue into compliance with the WTO legal determination. That was 
not accomplished, and another 20 months have passed without corrective 
action. As is their right, adversely affected trading partners have 
begun to take measures to rebalance concessions between them and the 
United States. The European Union, followed by Canada, Japan, and most 
recently Mexico--four of the leading trade partners of the U.S.--have 
imposed tariffs on various U.S. exports. This is the most widespread 
retaliatory measure ever taken under the WTO, and additional trading 
partners may take actions of their own in coming months.Further delay 
in correcting the legislation will add to the distortive effects, 
invite further retaliatory measures by trading partners, and diminish 
the credibility of the United States as a leading member of the system 
of trade rules embodied by the WTO. By contrast, timely repeal of 
Section 754 would eliminate an irritant in U.S. relations with the 
European Union and other leading trade partners, eliminate the threat 
of further retaliatory measures, and bolster the credibility of the WTO 
dispute settlement system.

    For these reasons, Eurofer believes that the repeal of section 754 
is long overdue and should not be further delayed.
                                 ______
                                 
Attachment
EUROFER MEMBERS ON WHOSE BEHALF COMMENTS ARE BEING FILED
Companies
Alphasteel Ltd., United Kingdom
Arcelor, Luxembourg
Acciaieria Arvedi, Italy
BSW--Badische Stahlwerke GmbH, Germany
Bohler Uddeholm, Austria
Grupo Celsa, Spain
Corus, United Kingdom
DanSteel A/S, Denmark
Dillinger Hutte, Germany
Duferco, Swizerland
Dunaferr, Hungary
Edelstahlwerke Sudwestfalen GmbH, Germany
Georgsmarienhutte, Germany
Halyvourgia Thessalias, Greece
Halvourgiki Inc., Greece
Helliniki Halyvourgia S.A., Greece
JSC Liepajas Metalurgs, Latvia
Lech-Stahlwerke, Germany
Marienhutte Stahl--und Walzwerke, Austria
Mittal Steel Europe s.a., Luxembourg
Mittal Steel Ostrava a.s., Czech Republic
Mittal Steel Poland s.a., Poland
Nedstaal Staal BV, The Netherlands
Riva, Italy
Saarstahl AG, Germany
Salzgitter AG, Germany
Sidenor, Greece
Siderurgia Nacional Empresas de Productos Longos, S.A., Portugal
Slovenian Steel Group, Slovenia
ThyssenKrupp Steel, Germany
Trinecke zelezarny, Czech Republic
Vitkovice Steel, Czech Republic
Voest Alpine, Austria
National Associations
Fachverband der Bergwerke und Eisen erzeugenden Industrie, Austria
Groupement de la Siderurgie--GSV, Belgium
Hutnictvi zeleza, Czech Republic
Mettallinjalostajat, Finland
Federation Francaise de l'Acier, France
Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Germany
ENXE, Greece
Magyar Vas--es Acelipari Egyesules, Hungary
Federacciai, Italy
Metallurgical Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Poland
Union de Empresas Siderurgicas--UNESID, Spain
Jernkontoret, Sweden
UK Steel, United Kingdom

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                    European Steel Tube Association
                                       Boulogne-Billancourt, France
                                                    August 25, 2005
House Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade

Dear Sir,

    The European Steel Tube Association welcomes the opportunity to 
support the repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy offset Act 
(Byrd Amendment) by inclusion of the bill H.R. 1121 into a 
miscellaneous trade bill because:

      U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions 
knowing full well that they will be eligible for subsidies under the 
Byrd Amendment. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments have a 
clear incentive to include more products within the scope of anti-
dumping or anti-subsidy cases, including products not even made in the 
U.S.
      The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit to global 
companies: first, foreign companies are forced to pay these duties; and 
second, due to the Byrd Amendment, the duty payments are then 
transferred to our U.S. competitors.
      The World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd 
Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade yet the U.S. has 
ignored this ruling.
      Failing to act on the WTO's ruling undermines the U.S. 
government's ability to take a leadership role on international trade 
issues.
      Products that are not produced in the U.S. are still 
included in the scope of products subject to Byrd Amendment duties--due 
solely to the potential landfall of Byrd payments, which has totaled 
more than $1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
      Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on 
``qualified expenditures'', which are not monitored or audited by 
Customs or any government agency.
      We rely on open trade for our export sales. The Byrd 
Amendment makes exporting raw materials for U.S. consuming industries 
and consumers more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and 
uncertainty.
      The repeal of the Byrd Amendment will not affect the 
ability of the U.S. to protect its industry from unfair competition: 
the imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties or other 
remedies authorized by the relevant WTO agreements ensures the required 
protection.
      This is the first time in the history of the WTO that so 
many members are authorized to impose retaliatory measures to the U.S. 
This illustrates the reality of the Byrd Amendment dispute: a U.S./rest 
of the world problem. The failure of the U.S., one of the world's 
leading trading nations, to comply fully with its WTO obligations is 
damaging the credibility of the rule based trading system. Undermining 
WTO disciplines harms the interests of all Members including those of 
the U.S.

    The European Steel Tube Association and its Members trust that the 
Committee will repeal the Byrd Amendment and enforce free and fair 
trading principles in accordance with WTO agreements.
                                                      Marc Bodineau
                                                  Secretary General

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

         Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations
                                                 Frankfurt, Germany
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    The Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations 
(FEBMA) appreciates the opportunity to offer its comments on a 
Miscellaneous Trade Legislation.
    FEBMA supports the inclusion of the bill H.R 1121 repealing Sec. 
754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 into a Miscellaneous Trade Legislation.
    Sec. 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was enacted by the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA / ``Byrd Amendment'').
    The CDSOA requires that anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties be 
transferred to producers of like products that were petitioners in the 
case or have supported the petition.
Bill H.R 1121 brings the United States legislation into conformitiy 
        with the WTO rules
    The Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO in a widely expected 
decision in January 2003 confirmed that the CDSOA violates WTO 
Agreements and distorts trade (WT/DS 217/AB/R--WT/DS234/AB/R).
    The deadline to comply with the WTO ruling already expired on 
December 27, 2003.
    The CDSOA is subject of one of the major disputes in the history of 
the WTO. Never before had there been more Members that brought a 
complaint and have been authorized to impose retaliatory measures.
    Its repeal must be considered a prerequisite for the credibility 
and the functioning of the multilateral trade system. The functioning 
of the rules-based multilateral trade system depends on strict 
observance by all its Members. Undermining its credibility and 
functioning certainly is not in the best interest of all global trading 
partners.
Bill H.R. 1121 supports the principles of free trade
    1. By repealing the CDSOA companies will no longer be encouraged to 
file or to support trade actions simply in order not to be excluded 
from disbursement of duties.
    This enables authorities to adequately determine whether or not 
there is sufficient industry support for trade action which is a 
prerequisite for legitimate protection of national industries.
    2. Repealing the CDSOA will remove an additional layer of 
protection over and above the relief provided for in the relevant GATT 
/ WTO rules resulting ``in the financing of U.S. competitors'' (WT/DS 
217/AB/R, 256). Bill H.R. 1121 brings to a termination such a practice 
counteracting the principles of free trade.
    Duties paid by the EU bearing manufacturers through their U.S. 
subsidiaries as well as other importers of EU manufactured bearings 
that have been disbursed to the U.S. competitors under the CDSOA in the 
years 2001-2005 amount to $ 125 million.
    In total U.S. bearing manufacturers have received $ 453 million, 
the vast majority going to only one company. (www. cbp.gov).
    Financing U.S. competitors through the transfer of duties to such 
an extent causes substantial harm to EU manufacturers and severely 
distorts trade in the U.S., the EU and world wide. The bearing industry 
is a global industry. U.S. manufacturers have production facilities in 
the EU 25 countries and European companies have facilities in the 
United States.
    This must be seen also in connection with the ``zeroing'' practice 
applied by the United States. A WTO panel on this dumping calculation 
methodology is pending. Without ``zeroing'' to our best knowledge there 
would be no anti-dumping duty orders against EU bearing manufacturers.
    FEBMA trusts that the Committee will take the initiative to achieve 
that the United States will address its WTO obligations and repeal the 
CDSOA without further delay.
            Sincerely,
                                               T1Dr. Andreas Rowold
                                                  Secretary General

                                 

                                               Floral Trade Council
                                               Ovid, Michigan 48866
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. which 
requested comments for the record regarding proposed bills concerning 
``technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals.'' A list of these miscellaneous trade bills is 
provided in the Advisory. This letter is the Floral Trade Council's 
response to the Subcommittee's request.
    The Floral Trade Council represents U.S. fresh cut flower growers.
    In particular, the FTC is concerned about, and opposes, two bills; 
H.R. 1121, and H.R. 2473. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section 754 
of the Tariff Act of 1930'' and H.R. 2473 is ``A bill to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others rate in 
antidumping cases.'' These bills are controversial and should be 
deleted from the final miscellaneous trade bill.
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Fair Trade:
    As the organization that represents cut flower producers in the 
U.S., the FTC is an unwavering supporter of strong trade law remedies. 
Effective and useable trade remedy laws are important tools to 
maintaining a level playing field for our industry in particular and 
more broadly for U.S. agricultural producers.
    The FTC believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws in 
this bill or elsewhere, should be rejected. Absent strong trade remedy 
laws, it will be harder for U.S. companies and workers to compete 
fairly with subsidized and dumped imports. And, without effective and 
useable trade remedy laws on the books; market opening trade policies 
will lose the support of the American people.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will undermine trade remedy laws in the 
ways detailed below. These bills are the type of controversial measures 
should not be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:
      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan 
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal 
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to eligible domestic industries found to have been injured 
by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our 
foreign competitors do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only when dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
Concerns about H.R. 2473:
      This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by 
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern 
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
      This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact, 
it would make a significant and harmful change to the antidumping law 
by making it exceeding difficult in a large number of cases for the 
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for 
non-investigated exporters.
      The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all 
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted 
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual 
exporters that were investigated.
      Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted 
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data. 
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially 
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are 
not uncommon.
      ``Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual 
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to 
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
      H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating 
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available, 
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many case, there would be 
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
      In substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law. 
H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in carrying out its 
statutory responsibilities to administer the antidumping law.
A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO Panel or 
        Appellate Body Decisions
    Another reason to delete H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from a 
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are legislation designed 
to change U.S. law in response to controversial decisions by WTO 
dispute panels and Appellate Body. A non-controversial miscellaneous 
trade bill is not the appropriate vehicle to make such legislative 
changes to trade remedy laws.
    These bills clearly respond to specific cases where WTO panels and 
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On 
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the 
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach. 
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from 
the text of the WTO Agreements.
    In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to 
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through 
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just 
that in the Doha Round negotiations. Both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, if 
legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
    In conclusion, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 need to be expeditiously 
removed from the miscellaneous trade bill package. There is no reason 
to jeopardize the passage of the hundreds of other helpful and non-
controversial bills contained in the package.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                 William R. Carlson
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

 Statement of Richard Cashman, Florida Forest Products, Largo, Florida
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    My company, Florida Forest Products, in Largo, Florida, produces 
structural building components-metal-plate connected wood trusses, and 
open-web floor joists--which are made primarily of softwood lumber and 
light gauge, galvanized steel connector plates. Our products are used 
mainly in residential homes across the country, as well as multi-family 
dwellings and light-commercial and agricultural buildings. We employ 
48, and strongly support H.R. 1121.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                 

                    [By Permission of the Chairman]

                                          Food and Drink Federation
                                                    London, England
                                                  September 1, 2005

Dear Members of the Ways and Means Sub-Committee

    The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) is the voice of the United 
Kingdom's (UK) food and drink manufacturing industry. Our industry has 
an annual turnover in excess of $123 billion. Every year we import $48 
billion worth of food and drink products and export almost $18 billion 
worth of goods worldwide. The United States is consistently our number 
one trading partner outside of the European Union (EU).
    All too often, the UK food and drink industry is negatively 
affected by retaliatory sanctions which are imposed as a result of 
unrelated WTO disputes.
    In the case of the Byrd Amendment Dispute, retaliatory sanctions 
have increased our members' bills for importing frozen sweet corn from 
the U.S. by 15%. This has directly caused our members to lose business 
and make redundancies in the areas of sales, marketing, production 
planning and finance. (The Sub-Committee may wish to note that one of 
the companies affected is General Mills UK, a wholly owned subsidiary 
of General Mills Minneapolis.) Our members may look to secure contracts 
with alternative European suppliers if these sanctions are to remain in 
place for much longer. Our members would prefer to retain their 
existing strong relationships with U.S. suppliers, and therefore I urge 
the Ways and Means Sub-Committee to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
            Yours faithfully,
                                                      Melanie Leech
                                                   Director General

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

     French Federation of ores, industrial mineral and non ferrous 
                                                             metals
                                                      Paris, France
                                                  September 2, 2005
    Sirs,

    On 25 July 2005, the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means 
Committee in the House of Representatives made public a list of bills 
that could be included in a miscellaneous trade bill. This list 
contains a bill introduced in March 2005 and which proposes to repeal 
the Byrd Amendment (Bill H.R. 1121 repealing Section 754 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930).
    We support repeal of the Byrd Amendment (Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act) because:

      We rely on open trade for our export sales. The Byrd 
Amendment makes exporting raw materials for U.S. consuming industries 
and consumers more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and 
uncertainty.
      The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit to global 
companies like ours: first, foreign companies are forced to pay these 
duties; and second, due to the Byrd Amendment, the duty payments are 
then transferred to our U.S. competitors.

    And we would fear that U.S. producers could file trade actions 
knowing full well that they will be eligible for Byrd money, a clear 
incentive to include more products within the scope of anti-dumping 
cases.
    As the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd Amendment 
violates WTO agreements and distorts trade, we hope that the USA, 
leader on international trade issues, will follow the conclusions of 
this ruling.
            Yours faithfully,
                                                   Patricia Vasseur
                                          Chief of legal department

                                 

                                                  Gates Corporation
                                             Denver, Colorado 80217
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. which 
requested written comments for the record from interested parties 
regarding proposed bills concerning ``technical corrections to U.S. 
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.'' Specifically, 
the Advisory included a list of the miscellaneous trade bills about 
which comments were requested. This letter is The Gates Corporation's 
(``Gates'') response to the Subcommittee's request.
    Gates is a manufacturer of power transmission belt and hose 
systems, components and accessories headquartered in Denver, Colorado. 
Gates has manufacturing and distribution facilities throughout the 
United States and abroad. For more information on Gates, please see our 
website at www.gates.com.
    Gates is particularly concerned about, and opposes, H.R. 1121, ``A 
bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930''. This bill is 
controversial and should be removed from the final miscellaneous trade 
bill.
    H.R. 1121 will weaken trade remedy law as it proposes to repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'') discussed 
below. CDSOA has strong bi-partisan support from Members of Congress 
and the public and is important to Gates.

      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to eligible domestic industries found to have been injured 
by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our 
foreign competitors do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only when dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.

    As a major U.S. manufacturer, Gates is a supporter of trade law 
remedies. Effective and useable trade remedy laws are crucial to 
maintaining a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers and their 
workers. Gates believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws 
should be rejected because it will make it harder for U.S. companies 
and workers to compete fairly with subsidized and dumped imports. 
Without effective trade remedy laws in place, trade liberalization 
policies will lose public support. Moreover, a ``non-controversial'' 
miscellaneous trade bill is not the appropriate vehicle to make such a 
controversial legislative change to trade remedy laws.

                                                     A.L. Stecklein
                                                    Group President

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

                                       Gebr. Reinfurt GmbH & Co. Kg
                                                 Wuerzburg, Germany
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    First of all, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your bill 
trying to repeal the ``Byrd Amendment''. As a result we would like to 
state our consent with your initiative. Herewith we go along with the 
EC's argumentation which is the basis of our letter to your 
subcommittee:
    As a family-owned small business company, producing ball bearings 
with 400 employees in Germany, we are heavily affect by the 
Administrative Reviews of Antifriction Bearings from Germany Case No. 
A-428-801. Additional to the enormous efforts we have to undertake to 
comply with all the underlying regulations of a POR reporting of our 
U.S.-exports, we have to acknowledge that eventual dumping-duties have 
to be paid a direct subsidy for our competitors in the U.S. market. 
Therefore we support the repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) by inclusion of the bill H.R 1121 into a 
miscellaneous trade bill because:

      U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions 
knowing full well that they will be eligible for subsidies under the 
Byrd Amendment. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments have a 
clear incentive to include more products within the scope of anti-
dumping or anti-subsidy cases, including products not even made in the 
U.S.
      The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit to global 
companies: first, foreign companies are forced to pay these duties; and 
second, due to the Byrd Amendment, the duty payments are then 
transferred to our U.S. competitors.
      The World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd 
Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade yet the U.S. has 
ignored this ruling.
      Failing to act on the WTO's ruling undermines the U.S. 
government's ability to take a leadership role on international trade 
issues.
      Products that are not produced in the U.S. are still 
included in the scope of products subject to Byrd Amendment duties--due 
solely to the potential landfall of Byrd payments, which has totalled 
more than $1 billion to date, with billions more waiting in the wings.
      Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on 
``qualified expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by 
Customs or any government agency.
      We rely on open trade for our export sales. The Byrd 
Amendment makes exporting raw materials for U.S. consuming industries 
and consumers more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and 
uncertainty.

    Having established a U.S. daughter company in the beginning of 2004 
and an engineer as an only employee currently, we are sure that with a 
continuing engagement in the U.S. market we would be able to create 
more job opportunities in the U.S. This vision can only be transferred 
into reality when growing is not hindered by pending liabilities for 
the so called importer of records. In our opinion, our U.S.-customers 
who now buy from us in Germany directly, will very likely turn to Asian 
suppliers than to the domestic U.S. industry. Therefore we support the 
repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) 
by inclusion of the bill H.R 1121 into a miscellaneous trade bill 
because:

      The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on American 
manufacturers who use products subject to antidumping and 
countervailing duties. American companies are the ones that pay these 
duties, and because of the Byrd Amendment, they have these duty 
payments transferred to their U.S. competitors. Therefore, part of an 
industry is taxed to subsidize another part of that industry.
      The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy to a very few 
companies that, far from assisting American manufacturing, actually 
undermines it. Most American manufacturers do not benefit from the Byrd 
Amendment. More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went 
to only nine companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went 
to only 44 companies.
      The Byrd Amendment does not restrict the recipients' use 
of Byrd Amendment money.
      Allocation of Byrd Amendment money is based on 
``qualified expenditures,'' which are not monitored or audited by 
Customs or any government agency. The Byrd Amendment annually funnels 
money collected from the imposition of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy 
duties from government coffers to companies that petition for those 
duties. Such funnelling has totalled more than $1 billion to date, with 
billions more waiting in the wings.
      U.S. producers are encouraged to file trade actions 
knowing full well that they will be eligible for Byrd money. U.S. 
companies in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to 
include more products within the scope of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy 
cases, including products not even made in the U.S.
      We rely on open trade for our export sales and our 
purchase of inputs. The Byrd Amendment makes importing raw materials 
more difficult and risky, increasing our costs and uncertainty.
      This law was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies. The antidumping and countervailing duty laws are 
more arbitrary, the duties are higher and orders are harder to revoke 
or change as a result of the Byrd Amendment.
      This harms consuming industries, but they have no ability 
to participate meaningfully in these cases. Repeal of the Byrd 
Amendment is an essential step in allowing consuming industries an 
opportunity to protect their interests as a matter of fundamental 
fairness.
      We export products that are actually or potentially 
subject to retaliation: our major trading partners will take action 
against U.S. exports as a result of the failure of Congress to repeal 
this WTO-illegal measure.

    With all due respect, please acknowledge the above mentioned facts 
and arguments.
    Additional if there is any chance for you to support our first goal 
to get a revocation of the Administrative Reviews of Antifriction 
Bearings from Germany Case No. A-428-801, please do so. We appreciate 
your concern.
            Best regards from Germany,
                                              Sabine Reinfurt-Jager
                                                 Managing Assistant

                                 

                    [By Permission of the Chairman]

                                                   General Mills UK
                                       Uxbridge, Middlesex, England
                                                    August 31, 2005
    Dear Sirs

    General Mills UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Mills 
Minneapolis, the sixth largest food company in the world. Currently we 
import frozen sweetcorn from the United States. The sweetcorn is under 
the Green Giant brand and is produced from a proprietary and unique 
seed, therefore we are currently limited to the U.S. for sourcing this 
product.
    As a consequence of the EU retaliation over the Byrd Amendment our 
frozen sweetcorn import costs have now risen by a further 15%. An 
increase of 15% in such a staple product sector is making our brand 
uncompetitive in the marketplace and therefore we are losing listings. 
The consequences of this are two-fold. In the short term we will have 
to make redundancies in the areas of sales, marketing, production 
planning and finance. In the longer term we will look to re-source this 
product using a Europe based growing source.
    Neither of these consequences are ideal and therefore I would urge 
the Ways and Means Committee to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
            Yours faithfully
                                                       J.G. Moseley
                                                  Managing Director

                                 

                                                  Gerdau Ameristeel
                                               Tampa, Florida 33631
                                                  September 2, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Sir or Madam:

    Gerdau Ameristeel is the steel industry's second largest minimill 
manufacturer with 73 operating facilities strategically located 
throughout North America. Our 7,200 professionals are dedicated to the 
preservation of a viable and competitive steel industry that is vital 
to the economic health of our society.
    On an annual basis, our steel operations recycle over eight million 
tons of ferrous scrap to produce quality steel products that reinforce 
the skylines and infrastructure of our communities and enrich the 
security of our lifestyles. The labor productivity of our operations 
and the advanced technology of our assets will rank among the leaders 
in the intensely competitive global steel industry.
    Gerdau Ameristeel has assumed a primary role in the consolidation 
and revitalization of the steel industry in North America. In the 
pursuit of our goals and strategic vision, we are not dependent on 
protectionist trade measures nor do we seek anything more than a level 
and fair global market environment. Unfortunately, the history of 
global steel trade reflects a legacy of foreign government 
intervention, subsidization and financial corporate welfare support for 
locally protected steel assets.
    The 7,200 employees of Gerdau Ameristeel wish to express their 
opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and any 
related legislative actions directed at the repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). We also wish to voice 
our displeasure and opposition to the proposals of H.R. 2473 which 
alters the calculation of the ``all others'' rate in anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty trade cases. Our opposition to the weakening of 
these unfair trade deterrents is based on a desire to sustain a 
reasonable balance in the fairness of international steel trade and to 
provide adequate time for completion of the restructuring of the North 
American steel industry.
    Over the past few years, our company has committed approximately 
one billion dollars towards the consolidation and revitalization of the 
domestic steel industry. Through this industry consolidation phase, 
Gerdau Ameristeel has increased its steel manufacturing capacity by 
approximately 400% and embarked on a long term program to resurrect the 
competitive stature of the acquired facilities.
    The success of this high risk strategy will require extensive 
capital investments in the modernization of the steel manufacturing 
facilities and the assimilation and rebuilding of the steel industry 
talent pool. We perceive that the completion of this industry 
revitalization will continue for several more years and the deterrent 
advantages of the existing trade laws will be of vital importance to 
this process. The fulfillment of this ambitious undertaking is also 
consistent with the directives of President Bush's policy mandates that 
were articulated during his first term of office.
    Gerdau Ameristeel is a major architect and driving force in the 
realization of the administrations steel policy and we urge the 
Congress to provide the moral guidance and legislative support for our 
completion of this task. The strength of our economy and the national 
security of our sovereign independence mandate that we retain a viable 
manufacturing sector and a healthy steel industry.
    As a constructive business partner in the realization of our steel 
industry vision, we strongly seek your support for the retention of 
effective trade laws and rejection of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Phillip E. Casey
                                                   Chairman and CEO

                                 

                  Statement of the Government of Japan
    The Government of Japan welcomes the initiative taken by Chairman 
Clay Shaw to propose Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills, and appreciates the opportunity to 
present its views to the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways 
and Means on Bill H.R. 1211 repealing Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). The 
Government of Japan strongly supports Bill H.R. 1121.
1. CDSOA
    The CDSOA, commonly known as the ``Byrd Amendment,'' is legislation 
that mandates that U.S. authorities distribute assessed antidumping 
(``AD'') and countervailing duties (``CVD'') among the domestic 
producers which support an investigation that ultimately leads to the 
imposition of those duties. On January 27, 2003, the Dispute Settlement 
Body (``DSB'') of the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') found that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under WTO 
rules \1\ The United States had 11 months (until December 27, 2003) to 
bring its legislation into conformity with the WTO rules \2\ More than 
a year and half have now passed since the expiration of this 
implementation period. During the last session of Congress, two bills 
aiming to implement the WTO ruling were introduced without avail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See the Minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body, on United 
States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Pages 8-18, 
WT/DSB/M/142)
    \2\ Award of the Arbitrator (WT/DS217/14, WT/DS234/22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CDSOA Harms the U.S. Interests.
    According to an analysis conducted by the U.S. Congressional Budget 
Office,\3\ the CDSOA undermines the competitiveness of U.S. industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Economic Analysis of The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000'', attachment of a letter from Congressional Budget Office 
to Bill Thomas, Chairman of Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of 
Representatives, in March 2, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CDSOA gives U.S. companies incentives to file or support more 
AD/CVD petitions, thereby causing more AD/CVD cases to be initiated in 
the United States. Under the CDSOA, there seems to be AD/CVD cases 
filed by companies whose problems are more about inefficiency and 
uncompetitiveness. The money distributed under the CDSOA, which the WTO 
ruled illegal, allows these otherwise inefficient/uncompetitive 
companies to stay in business to the detriment of U.S. consumers at 
large. By distributing money to these companies, the CDSOA allows them 
to produce and sell their goods at a greater cost than they are worth, 
while depriving the U.S. consumers of opportunities to purchase the 
equivalent products at the right market price. The CDSOA has 
distributed money to only a small number of U.S. companies. In fact, 
two companies alone have received more than one third of the money 
distributed so far.
    This analysis also expresses concerns over increased transaction 
costs, such as the cost of lawyers, economists, and lobbyists, and the 
social costs associated with implementing the distribution of duty 
revenues. The CDSOA thus negatively affects the U.S. economy.
3. Continued disregard of the WTO ruling undermines the credibility of 
        the rule-based trading system
    The dispute settlement system is a fundamental pillar of the WTO in 
providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading 
system. Its credibility depends on its strict observance by the 
Members. The failure of the United States, a leading Member of the WTO, 
to fully comply with its WTO obligations within the time limit set by 
the WTO is compromising the credibility of the United States. This in 
turn undermines the credibility of the WTO, which embodies a regime of 
a rule-based trading system, and would harm the interests of all WTO 
Members, including the United States.
    The WTO ruling does not deprive U.S. companies and workers of 
legitimate protection against unfair competition caused by dumping or 
subsidization. These trading practices can be adequately addressed by 
the imposition of AD/CVD. And if, over time, illegal dumping or 
subsidization increases and the duty initially imposed becomes 
insufficient to neutralize it, additional legal recourses are 
available. WTO rules allow for the review of the level of the duty and 
for making any necessary adjustments, thus canceling out any unfair 
competitive advantage that could result from increasing the level of 
dumping or subsidization.
    Some have argued that this dispute could be resolved by 
``legalizing'' the CDSOA through an amendment of the anti-dumping and 
subsidy agreements in the ongoing multilateral negotiations under the 
WTO. Many WTO members, including Japan, are opposed to such a move. 
Moreover, such a change to the WTO agreements would be fundamentally 
misguided and harm the U.S. interests as well. The inevitable 
consequence of ``legalization'' of the disbursement of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties to subsidize those uncompetitive beneficiary 
companies would only result in a proliferation of AD/CVD actions. This 
would certainly have a serious negative impact on world trade, 
including on U.S. exports.
4. Actions by U.S. Trading Partners
    Given the continued U.S. non-compliance with the WTO ruling, eight 
WTO Members saw no other option than to protect their rights by 
requesting that the WTO grant the authorization to take retaliatory 
measures. These eight WTO Members, which are Brazil, Canada, Chile, the 
European Union, India, Japan, Korea and Mexico, represent 71% of total 
U.S. exports and 64 % of total U.S. imports. Their requests were 
approved by the DSB on November 26, 2004.\4\ This is the first time in 
the history of the WTO that so many Members have been authorized to 
impose retaliation against the same measures found to be inconsistent 
with the WTO rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ In the case of Chile, the authorization was granted on December 
17, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since May 1, 2005, Canada and the EU have been applying their 
retaliatory measures, while Mexico put into force its retaliatory 
measures on August 18, 2005. The Government of Japan has decided to 
take its own measures starting from September 1, 2005.
5. Conclusion
     We are responsible for the maintenance of a credible multilateral 
trading system, and should observe the WTO rules. Since the United 
States takes a front seat in the world's trading system, it should 
respect and lead this system, which delivers great benefits to the 
world's economy as a whole. As explained above, the CDSOA wreaks a 
variety of adverse effects on the U.S. economy. Given these concerns 
and negative consequences, the Government of Japan strongly believes 
that the CDSOA must be repealed and therefore supports Bill H.R. 1121.

                                 

                                  Grocery Manufacturers Association
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) appreciates this 
opportunity to provide information in support of H.R. 1121, to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, also known as the Byrd Amendment.
    GMA is the world's largest association of food, beverage and 
consumer product companies. With U.S. sales of more than 500 billion 
dollars, GMA member companies employ more than 2.5 million workers in 
all 50 states.
    In August 2004, the WTO granted eight WTO Members the right to 
retaliate to more than $150 million against the U.S. for failing to 
comply with an earlier WTO dispute settlement ruling on the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, the so-called ``Byrd 
Amendment'' As you may recall, the Byrd Amendment allows domestic 
companies to collect duties directly from successful anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty cases. In 2003, the WTO ruled that the distribution 
of these duties was an illegal subsidy and gave the U.S. until December 
2003 to comply with the ruling.
    On May 1, 2005, Canada and the EU began to retaliate against U.S. 
products in response to our continued failure to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment. Canada has imposed a 15 percent surtax on U.S. live swine, 
cigarettes, oysters and certain specialty fish. The EU retaliation has 
focused heavily on apparel and footwear. On August 18, 2005, Mexico 
began to impose its $20.9 million retaliation, targeting chewing gum, 
wines and milk-based products. The tariff on certain milk-based 
products will increase to 30 percent. Brazil, Chile, India, Japan and 
Korea have also signaled their intent to retaliate but have yet to put 
forward definitive lists or products that will be subject to duty 
increases.
    GMA appreciates the efforts of the USTR to date, which since last 
year has been working with Congress on ways to bring the U.S. into 
compliance with the WTO ruling. While the total amount of retaliation 
in relation to the entire U.S. food, beverage and consumer products 
industry is modest, certain small subsectors are significantly feeling 
the effects of retaliation and we assume that more of these smaller 
facilities will be affected, should the remaining countries impose 
retaliation against targeted industries.
    It must be remembered that repeal of the Byrd Amendment would not 
affect the ability of the United States to enforce its trade laws or to 
impose duties on countries that are dumping or otherwise unfairly 
subsidizing products coming into the U.S. market. The Byrd Amendment 
has simply dealt with how funds collected from such duties have been 
distributed by the Treasury Department. Implementation of retaliations 
such as those occurring out of Byrd allow our trading partners to pick 
and choose which markets they close off to U.S. imports, making Byrd 
retaliation not only dispute settlement, but also a tool of competitive 
advantage.
     For these reasons, the Grocery Manufacturers Association 
encourages repeal of the Byrd Amendment and appreciates this 
opportunity to present our views on this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Mary Sophos
            Senior Vice President, Chief Government Affairs Officer

                                 
                                                  Hanson Aggregates
                                        San Diego, California 92163
                                                    August 23, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Hanson and its 13,000 employees in the United 
States to express our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 
in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can 
by no means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to 
existing law.
    Hanson is an international heavy side building materials company 
that produces and sells cement, aggregates, ready mix concrete, 
concrete pipe and precast products, concrete rooftile, asphalt, bricks, 
and a variety of other products. In the United States, we are 
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Including the businesses I manage, 
Hanson operates a cement plant in California and 53 ready mix batch 
plants throughout the country, including California and Arizona. In 
addition, we operate 90 pipe and concrete products plants in 21 states, 
including Arizona, California, Florida and Texas.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Mark T. Long
                                 Vice President and General Manager

                                 
                                     Hart's Manufacturing Committee
                                      Collierville, Tennessee 38017
                                                    August 17, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Hart's Manufacturing Company and its employees strongly oppose 
H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to maintain effective 
remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress should not treat its 
revocation as some sort of ``technical correction.''
    Hart's Manufacturing Company has facilities at Collierville, 
Tennessee and Corning, Arkansas. We are manufacturers of budget priced 
bedroom furniture and are in our 60th year of operation.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
                                                     Thomas W. Hart
                                                              Owner

                                 

                                               Higdon Furniture Co.
                                              Quincy, Florida 32353
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Higdon Furniture Co., Inc., and its 180 employees strongly 
oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to 
maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress 
should not treat its revocation as some sort of ``technical 
correction.''
    Higdon Furniture is located in Quincy, Florida. Our family owned 
furniture manufacturing plant was started in 1953. We provide a rural 
county with 180 much needed jobs. Unfairly priced imports from China 
contributed to the closing of over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture 
factories during 2001-2004. These factories employed over 18,000 
workers. Our industry's antidumping petition was opposed by over 30 law 
firms that represented the Chinese Government and over 100 Chinese 
companies. The Chinese Government even helped pay the legal fees of the 
Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our case, and the United States 
imposed antidumping duties to offset the dumped prices. Despite the 
antidumping order, however, we fear that some Chinese furniture 
exporters are continuing to dump their product in the United States at 
very low prices. They simply absorb the duties rather than adjust their 
prices to non-injurious levels as the law was intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
                                              J. Warren Higdon IIII
                                                          President

                                 

                                                Hilex Poly Co., LLC
                                   Hartsville, South Carolina 29550
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on 
behalf of Hilex Poly Co., LLC and its 800 employees to express our 
strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''). The bill is highly controversial. It cannot be fairly 
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
    Hilex Poly Co., LLC, headquartered in Hartsville, SC, operates five 
plastic bag making plants located in the states of North Carolina, 
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas and Idaho.
    Last year, our industry won antidumping cases against polyethylene 
retail carrier bags (``PRCBs'') from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 
With the antidumping orders now in place, we are concerned that some 
exporters are continuing to dump, absorbing the antidumping duties, and 
refusing to raise prices to non-injurious levels. CDSOA both 
discourages continued dumping and also compensates the victims of such 
continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that antidumping 
duties are distributed to the supporters of the original antidumping 
petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA distributions. 
Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    Contrary to false claims of some consumers of unfairly priced 
imports, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000. Our industry filed our antidumping 
petitions because we were being injured by unfairly priced imports, not 
because of CDSOA.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a United States proposal to change the WTO 
Antidumping Agreement to clarify that that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, Congress 
should continue to urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this 
controversial issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                    David C. Booher
                                                          President

                                 

                                   Home Decorators Collection, Inc.
                                          Hazelwood, Missouri 63042
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Home Decorators Collection, I would like to thank you 
for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our company, which relies on imported products, 
strongly supports this legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous 
trade bill.
    We are based in Hazelwood, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. We 
have over 1,000 employees and annual sales of close to $200 million. 
The majority of our sales are from our catalogs and websites but we 
have two stores and we plan on opening several more. Our tagline and 
mantra is ``Where value and selection come home.''
    To live by our mantra, we offer thousands of products sourced from 
all parts of the world. We import goods from many countries including: 
China, Brazil, Indonesia, India, and Malaysia, among others. Close to 
40% of our products are purchased from U.S. suppliers. We love to buy 
U.S. products whenever we can. However, we select products that will 
appeal to our customers, but they must be at a good price. Customers 
demand that we deliver on this promise. Frequently, imported products 
have more appealing styles and better values than domestic products.
    We support H.R. 1121's inclusion for the following reasons:

      The Byrd Amendment creates a clear incentive to file 
antidumping and countervailing duty cases. U.S. companies in line to 
receive payments have a clear incentive to include more products within 
the scope of cases, including products not even made in the United 
States. Consumers see cases filed because of the promise of Byrd money.
      Those who filed and support trade petitions are not 
required to use the Byrd money they receive for capital investments, 
job creation, worker retraining or improving U.S. competitiveness. 
There are no provisions in the law for any particular use for these 
funds. These companies effectively receive a government handout and may 
insert the funds directly into their bottom lines.

    Congress must consider repeal of the Byrd Amendment as quickly as 
possible. The inequities suffered by U.S. consuming industries are real 
and growing. Moreover, retaliation by our trading partners is 
increasing. Congress can avoid this looming catastrophe by acting 
promptly to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy for the United States economy and 
the American people. We urge the Committee to incorporate the 
legislation introduced by Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the 
Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to attach it to any viable legislation to 
assure its being enacted without delay.
    We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the 
Subcommittee.

                                                  Thomas K. Wilcher
                                            Chief Operating Officer

                                 

                                                    Honeyland, Inc.
                                          Wolf Point, Montana 59201
                                                    August 30, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Our company name is Honeyland, Inc. We are located in Montana. The 
President and manager of Honeyland, Inc. is a 3rd generation member of 
the family business. The original operation was established in Montana 
in 1922. A companion company, Northern Bloom Honey was purchased in 
1990, which operates in conjunction with Honeyland, Inc.
    The two companies employ five full time employees, and seven 
seasonal employees. The two companies participate in honey production 
during the summer months. A portion of the bee colonies are moved to 
California to provide pollination services for the almond growers in 
California during February and early March. After the almond bloom, the 
bees are moved to the state of Washington to provide pollination 
service for the apple growers. These bee colonies are returned to 
Montana in late April or early May.
    Our companies wish to express strong opposition to H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which calls for repeal of the Byrd 
Amendment, as well as our opposition to H.R. 2473 which would alter the 
calculation of ``all others'' rate in the Anti Dumping Countervailing 
Duties which would reduce the amount of duties collected and 
distributed under the CDSO.
    The funds we received, as a result of the Byrd Amendment, last 
December, which were distributed to us as members of Sioux Honey 
Association made it possible for our companies to set up a ``Health 
Savings Account'' for our employees. The employees appreciate the 
formation this plan, and are active in participating in it.
    Our cost of operation and production of honey are considerably 
greater than the countries that import large volumes of honey into this 
country. Without the Byrd Amendment it would be most difficult to 
continue the beekeeping operation of our companies, and to provide the 
service of pollination for agriculture crops that require honeybee 
pollinators.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
                                                    Harry Rodenberg
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                        Idaho Truss & Component Co.
                                              Meridian, Idaho 83642
                                                    August 30, 2005
To the Committee:

    The Byrd Amendment discourages international trade and encourages 
protectionist damages to the economy as whole. I am writing to strongly 
support repeal of this legislation.
    Idaho Truss & Component Co. produces structural building 
components--pre-fabricated wall systems, roof trusses and floor 
trusses--which consist almost entirely of softwood lumber and light 
gauge steel connector plates. These products are used in the 
overwhelming majority of residential, multi-family and light commercial 
buildings constructed in the United States.
Two-tiered Market for lumber harms U.S. companies.
    The Byrd Amendment harms my company's competitiveness. The CVD/AD 
structure is currently a serious hindrance to any progress on a long-
term, negotiated settlement in the lumber trade dispute with Canada. 
The two-tiered market for lumber (lumber is cheaper in Canada than in 
the U.S.) gives our competitors from north of the U.S./Canada border a 
significant advantage in bidding on work in the United States. 
Furthermore, volatility of the prices of softwood lumber has increased 
dramatically since the last trade agreement with Canada expired in 
2001. This volatility costs companies like mine money all the time 
because costs on future projects cannot be accurately estimated.
    I am also president of the Wood Truss Council of America, and as 
such I have seen first-hand the damaging effects of the prolonged trade 
dispute with Canada on many component companies across the whole 
northern half of the United States. There are a number of sad and 
unnecessary cases of established, often family-run, businesses that are 
no longer in business because of the effects of the trade dispute. 
There are several others of major component manufacturing investments 
being made in Canada instead of the United States because of the 
competitive advantage of buying lumber in Canada and selling trusses in 
the United States.
Damages the prospects for free trade across the board.
    The Byrd Amendment does two very bad things to free trade. First, 
it encourages the filing of anti-dumping claims by U.S. companies. 
Second, the accumulation of massive amounts of cash, which represents a 
massive ``payday'' for the companies that are party to the filing, 
greatly discourages the settlement of any trade dispute, because then 
the settlement of the issue takes a back seat to the distribution of 
the funds.
    In cases such as the lumber trade dispute and the $4 billion 
balance of CVD/AD duties collected, the distribution of the funds would 
have the further extremely negative effect of disturbing the 
competitive balance of the industries in which not all companies are 
part of the filing. The petitioning companies in this case represent 
only 54% of U.S. softwood lumber production. Enriching these companies 
by $4 billion would create an artificial economic advantage. One that 
has been garnered not by increasing competitiveness, but by being 
litigious.
    The Byrd amendment harms international trade, and its destructive 
effect on the softwood lumber trade negotiations with Canada harms my 
company directly. It was passed without the benefit of a proper hearing 
process in the first place, which only emphasizes how ill considered 
this piece of legislation is. Please repeal this bill.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide my point of view. If you 
have any questions or need further information, please feel free to 
contact me. I would be pleased to testify at any hearing.
                                                    Kendall R. Hoyd
                                                          President

                                 

                                     Independent Steelworkers Union
                                       Weirton, West Virginia 26062
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Independent Steelworkers Union (``ISU'') represents over 2,000 
steelworkers at the Weirton facility of Mittal Steel USA, in Weirton, 
West Virginia. ISU is grateful for the chance to submit comments on 
bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade 
package. In particular, ISU is interested in H.R. 1068, ``A bill to 
maintain and expand the steel import licensing and monitoring 
program,'' H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 
relating to determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    ISU supports the inclusion of H.R. 1068 in the miscellaneous trade 
bill and urges Congress to pass it into law. H.R. 1068 is an important 
bill and one that should not attract significant controversy. H.R. 1068 
simply expands and makes permanent the steel import monitoring program 
that was established as part of the president's steel safeguard action 
in 2002. This successful program has enabled U.S. producers and 
policymakers to stay current on shifts in trade flows in the steel 
sector and, when necessary, to take appropriate action. Making the 
program permanent will help prevent future import surges like those in 
the late 1990s, which resulted in thousands of lost steelworker jobs. 
Expanding the program as proposed in H.R. 1068 would provide for 
complete coverage of all steel mill products, allowing for a more 
comprehensive analysis of steel imports. H.R. 1068, which modifies and 
expands a successful, existing program, is representative of the sort 
of bill that logically ought to be included in the miscellaneous trade 
package. ISU supports its inclusion and enactment.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are bills that should not be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills, if passed, 
would significantly weaken U.S. trade remedy laws and are thus likely 
to attract a great deal of opposition. The U.S. needs strong, effective 
trade remedy laws to ensure a level playing field for U.S. 
manufacturers and workers. Given a fair market, the U.S. steel industry 
can compete with any foreign rivals. However, ISU is all too familiar 
with the effect of surges of steel imports at dumped and subsidized 
prices. That is why the trade laws must remain in place, to prevent and 
offset unfair trade and to provide a remedy for injury caused by it. 
The miscellaneous trade bill should not be used to chip away at these 
critical laws. That is why H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 must be excluded 
from the package.
    H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes funds to 
certain domestic parties that have been injured by dumped and 
subsidized imports for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people. The source of the funds for CDSOA is antidumping and 
countervailing duties, which are collected when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. Where dumping 
or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no funds to 
distribute. That means the AD/CVD orders are working as intended. CDSOA 
does not change the methodology used by Commerce to calculate dumping 
margins or subsidy rates and it has no effect on the amount of duty 
that must be paid. The program simply distributes funds to injured 
parties, pursuant to generally applicable criteria, when unfair trade 
practices do not cease. There is broad bi-partisan support among 
Members of Congress and the public for CDSOA, and any legislation to 
repeal the law would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. In ISU's view, H.R. 1121 is not a bill that should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. This is hardly a technical amendment, however. If 
enacted, H.R. 2473 would severely limit Commerce's ability to 
effectively enforce the antidumping law. In effect, H.R. 2473 would 
make it nearly impossible in most cases for Commerce to calculate the 
dumping margin for non-investigated exporters, known as the ``all-
others'' rate. The ``all-others'' rate is a weighted average of dumping 
margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. Under 
current law, dumping margins that are based entirely on ``facts 
available'' data are not included in the average. ``Facts available'' 
refers to data used by Commerce to calculate a dumping margin when a 
respondent company does not supply all the actual company-specific that 
is needed. Margins that are based only partially on facts available are 
used in the calculation of the ``all-others'' rate. In practice, this 
is necessary because many of the dumping margins Commerce calculates 
are based on at least some ``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would prohibit Commerce from using any dumping margins in 
the ``all-others'' rate calculation that are based on any amount of 
``facts available'' data. In most cases, this would effectively leave 
Commerce with no margins to use in calculating an ``all-others'' rate. 
Consequently, H.R. 2473 would create serious administrative 
difficulties for the Department, necessarily weakening the antidumping 
law. For these reasons, H.R. 2473 will almost certainly attract 
significant controversy and would, for practical purposes, not be 
administrable by Commerce.
    ISU also finds it disturbing that the apparent purpose of H.R. 1121 
and H.R. 2473 is to implement World Trade Organization (``WTO'') panel 
and Appellate Body decisions that have gone against the U.S. That 
purpose is inconsistent with the purpose of the miscellaneous trade 
bill, which has historically been non-controversial legislation. 
Furthermore, Congress and the Administration have repeatedly criticized 
the overreaching of WTO panels and the Appellate Body, in these 
disputes in particular, and have consistently maintained that, in the 
decisions on CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, new obligations were 
created that the U.S. never agreed to. These new rules are nowhere to 
be found in the text of any WTO Agreement. Congress has also previously 
called for the Administration to resolve these disputes through 
negotiations at the WTO. Those negotiations are in progress as part of 
the Doha Round and the Administration should be allowed to work within 
that process to see whether, through negotiation, the problems created 
by panel and Appellate Body overreaching can be corrected. 
Consequently, it would not be appropriate to include H.R. 1121 and H.R. 
2473 in the miscellaneous trade package.
    ISU appreciates the Subcommittee accepting these comments and 
taking them into consideration during its deliberations.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                       Mark Glyptis
                                                          President

                                 

                                        International Dynasty Corp.
                                                Houston,Texas 77099
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of International Dynasty, I would like to thank you for 
the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our company, which relies on imported products. 
strongly supports this legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous 
trade bill.
    Headquartered in [Houston Texas], [International Dynasty] has [100 
employees with 2004 sales at $100 million. We are the distributor of 
living rooms set bedroom set and dining room set
    We support H.R. 1121's inclusion for the following reasons:

      The Byrd Amendment creates a clear incentive to file 
antidumping and countervailing duty cases. U.S. companies in line to 
receive payments have a clear incentive to include more products within 
the scope of cases, including products not even made in the United 
States. Consumers see cases filed because of the promise of Byrd money. 
Other cases include products not even produced here.
      The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. 
More than half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine 
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 
companies nationwide.
      The prospect of Byrd Amendment money discourages 
settlement of antidumping and countervailing duty cases through 
suspension agreements, and creates an incentive for petitioners to 
broaden the scope of cases, often including products not even made in 
the United States or made in inadequate quantities. As a result, cases 
are broader, last longer and do more damage to consuming industries.
      Those who filed and support trade petitions are not 
required to use the Byrd money they receive for capital investments, 
job creation, worker retraining or improving U.S. competitiveness. 
There are no provisions in the law for any particular use for these 
funds. These companies receive a government handout and may insert the 
funds directly into their bottom lines.
      Byrd Amendment distributions can actually encourage the 
loss of American jobs offshore. Large U.S. Byrd Amendment recipients 
import products from countries that are subject to dumping orders. 
Their Byrd Amendment distributions can offset the dumping duties paid, 
giving the company an exemption from the impact of antidumping laws. 
They, unlike non-Byrd recipients, can import dumped products from their 
affiliates overseas without having to bear the financial burden of 
antidumping duties, since the U.S. government reimburses them.

    Congress must consider repeal of the Byrd Amendment as quickly as 
possible. The inequities suffered by U.S. consuming industries are real 
and growing. Moreover, retaliation by our trading partners is 
increasing. Congress can avoid this looming catastrophe by acting 
promptly to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy for the United States economy and 
the American people. We urge the Committee to incorporate the 
legislation introduced by Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the 
Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to attach it to any viable legislation to 
assure its being enacted without delay. This bill was adopted in the 
dead of night--it should be repealed in broad daylight with the 
greatest possible speed.
    We appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the 
Subcommittee.
                                                        Sophia Chen
                                                    General Manager

                                 

                 International Foodservice Distributors Association
                                       Falls Church, Virginia 22046
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the International Foodservice Distributors 
Association, thank you for the opportunity to comment on trade issues 
under consideration for legislation by the Committee. IFDA strongly 
urges the Committee to include HR 1121 to repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act, commonly known as the Byrd Amendment, in any 
eventual overall legislation.
    IFDA is a Washington, D.C. based trade organization representing 
foodservice distributors throughout the U.S., Canada, and 
internationally. IFDA's 130+ members include broadline, systems, and 
specialty foodservice distributors that supply food and related 
products to restaurants, institutions, and other food away from home 
foodservice operations. IFDA members operate more than 550 facilities, 
and sell more than $75 billion in food and related products to the 
fastest growing sector in the food industry.
    The Byrd amendment transfers money collected from the imposition of 
anti-dumping duties from the government to the companies that petition 
for those duties. Contrary to its original intent to protect American 
producers, however, the legislation does little but encourage the 
filing of such petitions resulting in reduced competition and opening 
U.S. exports to potential retaliation from our trading partners.
    Very few companies receive benefits with more than half the 
payments last year going to only 9 companies, and 80 percent of the 
money going to only 44 companies. Thus, the legislation has become 
little more than a government handout to a few companies that actually 
has the impact of undermining American manufacturing.
    With a clear incentive to file petitions, companies in line to 
benefit have sought duties on a wide variety of products, including 
many not even made in the United States. It has also made importing raw 
materials more difficult and financially risky, increasing uncertainty 
for businesses and increasing costs for consumers. Consuming industries 
have very little opportunity to participate meaningfully in decisions, 
making anti-dumping laws more arbitrary, increasing duties and making 
such orders harder to revoke and change.
    IFDA strongly urges the inclusion of HR 1121 to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment in any eventual legislation drafted by the Committee. We 
appreciate this opportunity to comment on this issue and look forward 
to working with the Committee to pass this important legislation.
                                                       David French
                        Senior Vice President, Government Relations

                                 

                    Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment
                                              Tokyo, Japan 105-0011
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: 202-225-8398

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Japanese Machinery 
Center for Trade and Investment (JMC) and its 300 member corporations, 
I write to express our strong support for the inclusion of H.R. 1121, 
legislation to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(CDSOA), in the 2005 miscellaneous trade bill. We sincerely appreciate 
your initiative to include this important provision among the bills 
that the Subcommittee will consider.
    JMC is a non-profit organization of Japan's major electronics and 
machinery manufacturers, trading companies and engineering companies. 
JMC's activities emphasize multilateral trade and investment rules, 
bilateral Free Trade Agreements, environmental protection regulations, 
national industrial policies, trade related security measures, and 
trade insurance. In 2004, the Japanese machinery sector accounted for 
$103.6 billion in U.S. exports, representing over 80 percent of total 
Japanese exports to the United States during that year.
    JMC supports repeal of the CDSOA (the ``Byrd Amendment'') because 
the law is inimical to U.S. credibility in the multilateral trading 
system, to U.S and non-U.S. businesses and to consumers:

      U.S. International Leadership and the Multilateral 
Trading System. The United States is the WTO's most important member, 
and thus U.S. compliance with the WTO Dispute Settlement Body's ruling 
on the Byrd Amendment is indispensable for the integrity of the 
multilateral trade regime. The United States' leadership among the 
global community is faltering in light of several adverse WTO rulings 
with which the United States has, thus far, refused to comply. In the 
eyes of the United States' international trading partners, the Byrd 
Amendment is the most important of these outstanding measures. Its 
repeal would send a positive signal to the international trading 
community just before the WTO's Hong Kong Ministerial--a meeting 
critical to the success of not only the ``Doha Round,'' but also the 
multilateral trading system as a whole.
      U.S. Exporters and the World Economy. The failure of 
Congress to repeal this WTO-illegal measure has triggered the 
imposition of retaliatory measures from the United States' major 
trading partners, harming U.S. exporting interests and disrupting world 
trade. In recent months, the European Union, Canada, Japan and Mexico 
announced that they will impose retaliatory tariffs against U.S. 
imports totaling almost $130 million. The EU, Canada and Mexico have 
already begun collecting these duties, and Japan will begin to do so on 
September 1. Brazil, Chile, India and Korea are not far behind. These 
measures will cause significant harm to U.S. exporting interests and 
lead to massive market disruptions.
      Foreign Exporters and the U.S. Economy. According to a 
2004 U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study, the distributions 
mandated by CDSOA are detrimental to foreign exporters and the United 
States' overall economic welfare: (1) they encourage the filing of more 
antidumping and countervailing-duty (AD/CVD) cases, resulting in more 
duties that, on balance, harm the economy; (2) they subsidize the firms 
receiving them, preventing resources from flowing to higher-value 
activities in other firms and industries; and (3) they increase the 
private and public cost associated with the operation and 
implementation of the laws. Higher litigation costs and more tariffs on 
foreign goods cause direct harm to foreign exporters. This includes 
some of JMC's members, many of whom have subsidiaries in the United 
States. Indeed, in 2003 Japanese investment in the United States was 
approximately $165 billion, and Japanese manufacturing companies 
employed about 334,300 Americans in 2002. The failure of Congress to 
repeal the Byrd Amendment would injure not only their economic well-
being, but also the excellent relationships that our member firms have 
established and maintained in the United States over the last several 
decades.

    Given the serious economic harm that the Byrd Amendment causes, and 
its concomitant harm to foreign exporters, U.S. trade relations and the 
multilateral trading system as a whole, JMC respectfully urges members 
of the Trade Subcommittee to support the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
2005 miscellaneous trade bill and to work for the ultimate repeal of 
the Byrd Amendment as soon as possible. The law is a blemish on the 
United States' strong record of leadership in the international trading 
community. It harms the United States' general economic welfare and its 
largest trading partners. We ask the U.S. Congress to act now before 
the Byrd Amendment causes further damage.
            Sincerely yours,
                                                     Osamu Morimoto
                                        Executive Managing Director

                                   ----------

JMC Membership
A&T Corporation
Accuphase Laboratory, Inc.
Aida Engineering, Ltd.
Akibo Corporation
Alstom K.K.
Altia Hashimoto Co., Ltd.
Amita Machines
Anzen Motor Car Co., Ltd.
Arimitsu Industry Co., Ltd.
Asahi Kasei Chemicals Corporation
Asia Trading & Service Co., Ltd.
Asyst Shinko, Inc.
Babcock-Hitachi Kabushiki Kaisha
Bailey Japan Co., Ltd.
Banzai, Ltd.
Brother Industries, Ltd.
Canon Finetech Inc.
Canon Inc.
Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
Central Automotive Products Ltd.
Century Yamakyu Corporation
Chisso Engineering Co., Ltd.
Chiyoda Corporation
Chlorine Engineers Corp. Ltd.
Chori Co., Ltd.
Chugai Ro Co., Ltd.
CKD Corporation
CKS Corporation
Clarion Co., Ltd.
Creative World Corporation
Daido Steel Co., Ltd.
Daiei Papers International Corporation
Daihen Corporation
Daikin Industries, Ltd.
Denki Shoji Co., Ltd.
Denon Ltd.
Earthtechnica Co., Ltd.
Ebara Corporation
Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.
Enshu Ltd.
Far East Development Corp.
FDK Corporation
Fuji Electric Holdings Co., Ltd.
Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd.
Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.
Fuji Machine Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
Fuji Technica Inc.
Fujitsu General Limited
Fujitsu Limited
Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
Fuso International Co., Ltd.
Gaio Technology Co., Ltd.
General Electric Japan, Ltd.
Hamai Co., Ltd.
Hanwa Co., Ltd.
Harada Bussan Kaisha, Ltd.
Hirata Valve Industry Co., Ltd.
Hisaka Works, Ltd.
Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.
Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation
Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc.
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
Hitachi Plant Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd.
Hitachi Via Mechanics, Ltd.
Hitachi Zosen Corporation
Hitachi Zosen Fukui Corporation
Hitachi, Ltd.
Hmt Consort Ltd.
Hokuetsu Industries Co., Ltd.
Homerton (Japan) Co., Ltd.
Hosoda Trading Co., Ltd.
Hotta Corporation
Howa Machinery, Ltd.
Ikegai Corporation
Ikegami Koeki Co., Ltd.
International Services Corporation
Iseki & Co., Ltd.
Ishikawa Seisakusho, Ltd.
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
Iss Machinery Services Limited
Itochu Corporation
Itochu Sanki Corporation
Itochu Texmac Corporation
Iwatani International Corporation
Iyasaka Limited
Japan AE Power Systems Corporation
Japan Machinery Company
Japan Overseas Rolling Stock Association
Japan Radio Co., Ltd.
Japan Ship Exporters' Association
Japan Steel Tower Co., Ltd.
JFE Engineering Corporation
JFE Shoji Trade Corporation
JFE Steel Corporation
JGC Corporation
JP Steel Plantech Co.
JTC Corporation
Kaji Technology Corporation
Kanai Juyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Kanematsu Corporation
Kanematsu Kgk Corp.
Kato Works Co., Ltd.
Kawajyu Shoji Co., Ltd.
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Kawashima-Koki Co., Ltd.
Kenwood Corporation
Keyser Mercantile Co.,(Japan) Ltd.
Kitamura Machinery Co., Ltd.
Kobe Steel, Ltd.
Kobelco Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.
Kobelco Cranes Co., Ltd.
Kobelco Eco-Solutions Co., Ltd.
Komatsu Forklift Co., Ltd.
Komatsu Ltd.
Konica Minolta Business Expert, Inc.
Konica Minolta Business Technologies, Inc.
Kowa Co., Ltd.
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.
Kubota Corporation
Kuraray Co., Ltd.
Kurimoto, Ltd.
Kurita Water Industries Ltd.
Kyocera Mita Corporation
Kyokuto Boeki Kaisha, Ltd.
M.C. Trading, Ltd.
Mamiya-Op Co., Ltd.
Marlux International Corporation
Marubeni Corporation
Marubeni Power Systems Corporation
Marubeni Protechs Co., Ltd.
Marubeni Tekmatex Corporation
Maruzen Corporation
Matsuo Bridge Co., Ltd.
Matsushita Battery Industrial Co., Ltd.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Mectron Inc.
Meidensha Corporation
Meiji Sangyo Company
Meiwa Corporation
Mitsubishi Agricultural Machinery Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi Chemical Engineering Corporation
Mitsubishi Corporation
Mitsubishi Corporation Technos
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Mitsubishi Kakoki Kaisha, Ltd.
Mitsubishi-Hitachi Metals Machinery, Inc.
Mitsui & Co. Power Systems Corporation
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Mitsui Bussan Plant & Project Corporation
Mitsui Chemicals, Inc.
Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.
Mitsui Miike Machinery Co., Ltd.
Mitsui Seiki Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Miyairi Valve Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Miyaji Iron Works Co., Ltd.
Mori Seiki Co., Ltd.
Moritani & Co., Ltd.
Muranaka Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Murata Machinery, Ltd.
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.
Nanyo Corporation
Nasu Denki-Tekko Co., Ltd.
NEC Corporation
Nihon Meiwa Co., Ltd.
Niigata Loading Systems, Ltd.
Niigata Machine Techno Co., Ltd.
Nikon Corporation
Nippei Toyama Corp.
Nippon Conveyor Co., Ltd.
Nippon Pneumatic Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Nippon S.T.Johnson Sales Co., Ltd.
Nippon Sharyo, Ltd.
Nippon Steel Corporation
Nippon Steel Trading Co., Ltd.
Nippon Trading Co., Ltd.
Nippon Yusoki Co., Ltd.
Nippon Zoki Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Nishimura Shokai Co., Ltd.
Nishizawa Ltd.
Nissen Corporation
Nissey Co., Ltd.
Nissin Electric Co., Ltd.
Nomura Micro Science Co., Ltd.
Nomura Trading Co., Ltd.
Noritake Co.,Limited
NSK Ltd.
NTT Corporation
NTT Data Corporation
Nuflare Technology Inc.
Ohmi Industries, Ltd.
Okaya & Co., Ltd.
Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.
Okuma Corporation
Olympus Corporation
Olympus Imaging Corp.
Olympus Medical Systems Corp.
Omron Corporation
ORIX Trade International Corporation
Panasonic Communications Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Electronic Devices Co., Ltd.
Pentax Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Plant Maintenance Corporation
Ricoh Co., Ltd.
Sanki Engineering Co., Ltd.
Sanko Shoji Ltd.
Sanritsu Kosan Co., Ltd.
Sanshin Plywood Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Sanwa Machinery Trading Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Sales & Marketing Corporation
Sasakura Engineering Co., Ltd.
Seika Corporation
Seiko Epson Corporation
Sharp Corporation
Shima Trading Co., Ltd.
Shimadzu Corporation
Shin Nippon Koki Co., Ltd.
Shin Nippon Machinery Co., Ltd.
Shin Wako Koeki Co., Ltd.
Shinkikaigiken Co., Ltd.
Shinko Electric Co., Ltd.
Shinko Sangyo Co., Ltd.
Shinko, Ltd.
Shinsho Corporation
Sojitz Corporation
Sojitz Machinery Corporation
Sony Corporation
Sugikuni Industrial Co., Ltd.
Sumikin Bussan Corporation
Sumisho Machinery Trade Corporation
Sumitomo Corporation
Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd.
Sumitomo Nacco Materials Handling Co., Ltd.
Sumitomo Precision Products Co., Ltd.
T. Chatani & Co., Ltd.
Taiheiyo Engineering Corporation
Taiyo Bussan Co., Ltd.
Taiyo Corporation
Taiyo Electric Co., Ltd.
Taiyo Nippon Sanso Corporation
Takamatsu Machinery Co., Ltd.
Takeuchi Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Takuma Co., Ltd.
Tanaka Industries Co., Ltd.
TCM Corporation
Tecno Frontier Co., Ltd.
Tecno Wasino Co., Ltd.
The Japan Steel Works, Ltd.
The Kiichi Tools Co., Ltd.
The Osaka Printing Ink Mfg. Co., Ltd.
The Rotel Co., Ltd.
TMT & D Corporation
Tohwa Electric Co., Ltd.
Tokuyama Corporation
Tokyo Boeki Ltd.
Tokyo Denpa Company, Ltd.
Tokyo Machine & Tool Co., Ltd.
Tokyo Pulp & Paper International Co., Ltd.
Tomen Corporation
Topy Industries, Ltd.
Toray Engineering Co., Ltd.
Torishima Pump Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Toshiba Consumer Marketing Corporation
Toshiba Corporation
Toshiba Machine Co., Ltd.
Toshiba Machine Machinery Co., Ltd.
Toshiba Mitsubishi-Electric Industrial Systems Corporation
Totsu-Soken Corporation
Toyo Corporation
Toyo Denki Seizo K.K.
Toyo Engineering Corporation
Toyo Hoist Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Toyoda Machine Works, Ltd.
Toyota Industries Corporation
Toyota Tsusho Corporation
Tsudakoma Corp.
Tsukishima Kikai Co., Ltd.
TTK Corporation
Ube Machinery Corporation, Ltd.
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.
Voith Fuji Hydro K.K.
Voith IHI Paper Technology Co., Ltd.
Y.Ikemura & Co., Ltd.
Yagami International Trading Co., Ltd.
Yamaha Corporation
Yamazaki Mazak Corporation
Yamazaki Mazak Trading Corporation
Yamazen Corporation
Yanmar Diesel Engine Co., Ltd.
Yaskawa Electric Corporation
Yuasa Trading Co., Ltd.

(As of April, 2005)

                                 

                                     Kansas Cattlemen's Association
                                            Manhattan, Kansas 66502
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Kansas Cattlemen's Association is submitting these comments in 
response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments for the 
record from all parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. 
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. The mission of 
the KCA is to restore profits, self-esteem, freedom, fair trade, trust 
and community pride back to the farms, ranches and rural communities 
across Kansas and the nation. Established in 1998, the Kansas 
Cattlemen's Association represents independent, grass-root cattle 
producers and feedlot operators on marketing and trade issues. Prior to 
1998, independent producers felt as though they were being both 
underrepresented and misrepresented by current organizations. Thus, the 
Kansas Cattlemen's Association works hard to sustain the independent 
agricultural lifestyle for farmers and ranchers. With all of the 
consolidation currently taking place amongst the agricultural 
industries, the Kansas Cattlemen's Association focuses on not only 
maintaining, but enhancing competition within the marketplace for the 
USA live cattle industry. In its nearly seven years of existence, the 
Kansas Cattlemen's Association has experienced exponential growth, with 
current membership numbers approaching 2,100.
     The Kansas Cattlemen's Associationwelcomes the opportunity to 
comment on the bills being considered for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous package, in particular H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to 
amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others 
rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. The Kansas Cattlemen's Association supports 
maintaining strong and effective trade laws. Such laws are necessary to 
ensure a level playing field for U.S. ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, 
as well as U.S. manufacturers and workers. In a fair market, U.S. 
producers are second to none. When foreign competitors flood the U.S. 
market with dumped and subsidized goods, however, the trade laws must 
be in place to provide a remedy for injury caused by unfairly traded 
imports. The Kansas Cattlemen's Association believes it would be 
inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, 
but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in 
the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, the Kansas Cattlemen's Associationbelieves that H.R. 
1121 should not be included in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    The Kansas Cattlemen's Association is also concerned that H.R. 1121 
and H.R. 2473 appear to be efforts to implement adverse decisions of 
panels and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization 
(``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill is not an appropriate means by 
which to implement such decisions and enact changes in major U.S. trade 
laws. Furthermore, Congress and the Administration have been critical 
of overreaching by WTO panels and the Appellate Body and have expressed 
concern that the decisions on CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, in 
particular, created new obligations that the United States never agreed 
to and which are not found in the text of any WTO Agreement. In 
addition, Congress has previously directed the Administration to 
negotiate a resolution of these disputes at the WTO. The Administration 
is currently engaged in the Doha Round rules negotiations and should be 
allowed to complete that process, which ought to result in a correction 
of the problems created by panel and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, the Kansas Cattlemen's Association appreciates the 
opportunity to submit these comments and would like to thank the 
Subcommittee for taking into account the Kansas Cattlemen's Association 
views on these two bills discussed above.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                         Doran Junk
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                             Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.
                                             Peoria, Illinois 61641
                                                  September 2, 2005
The United States Congress
House Ways and Means Committee

    Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. operates facilities in 
Peoria, Illinois; Sherman, Texas; and Upper Sandusky, Ohio; employing 
approximately 1,300 people in the manufacture of steel and wire 
products.
    Keystone strongly opposes H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill calling for the repeal of the CDSOA, as well as HR 2473, which 
alters the calculation of the ``all others'' rate in AD/CVD cases, 
which would significantly reduce the amount of duties collected and 
distributed under CDSOA.
    CDSOA funds have helped Keystone's investment to upgrade machinery 
and equipment to lower the cost of producing our products necessary to 
remain competitive with the foreign markets. All of our employees have 
worked very had in this endeavor.
    We have worked very hard to become a cost competitive producer; and 
our employees, as well as the surrounding communities, expect Congress 
to actively support these manufacturing jobs in the United States by 
opposing repeal of the CDSOA and to support the U.S. government's 
sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by Congress by 
fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
            Very truly yours,
                                                     David L. Cheek
                                                    President & CEO

                                 

                                    Kincaid Furniture Company, Inc.
                                       Hudson, North Carolina 28638
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Kincaid Furniture Company, Incorporated and its 523 employees 
strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be 
preserved to maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded 
imports. Congress should not treat its revocation as some sort of 
``technical correction.''
    Kincaid Furniture Company, Incorporated is headquartered in Hudson, 
North Carolina and operates a furniture manufacturing plant in Hudson, 
North Carolina.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
                                                     Steven Kincaid
                                                          President

                                 

                                         Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.
                                               Westlake, Ohio 44145
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways & Means
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 press release, I am writing on 
behalf of Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. and its 1,800+ employees, to 
express our strong support for the inclusion of H.R. 1121, a bill to 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'' or 
``Byrd Amendment''), in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (``KCU''), a U.S. manufacturer, importer 
and exporter of bearings, steering systems and other automotive parts, 
has its headquarters in Westlake, Ohio, research facilities in 
Plymouth, Michigan, and manufacturing plants in South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. As explained in more detail below, KCU, 
like many other U.S. companies, is negatively affected by the Byrd 
Amendment due to the illegal disbursements made thereunder to one of 
its competitors, namely the Timken Company (``Timken''), and due to the 
retaliatory duties to which KCU's exports of ball bearings to Japan 
will be subject as a result of Japan's legitimate response to the 
United States' continued application of the Byrd Amendment.
    As the committee well knows, it has been over two and one half 
years since the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization 
(``WTO'') found the Byrd Amendment inconsistent with U.S. international 
obligations under the WTO Antidumping and Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures Agreements. United States--Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R and WT/DS234/AB/R (January 16, 2003). 
Since that finding, the United States Trade Representative has on 
repeated occasions stated that the United States will comply with its 
WTO obligations, and the Administration will work closely with Congress 
to do so.
    Despite this repeated statement, and the passing of the December 
27, 2003 deadline to comply with the Appellate Body's report, the 
United States continues to disburse funds to petitioners pursuant to 
the Byrd Amendment. For the reasons given below, it is imperative for 
the United States to remain true to its word and to cease its illegal 
practice through repeal of the Byrd Amendment, as proposed in H.R. 
1121. In particular, KCU notes:

      The United States' failure to repeal the Byrd Amendment 
in a timely manner has exposed U.S. exports to retaliation from each of 
the WTO Members that initiated the Byrd Amendment challenge. As of the 
writing of this letter, the EU and Canada have already imposed 
retaliatory duties on a wide range of products, and Japan, Mexico and 
Chile have released lists indicating the specific products on which 
they plan to impose additional duties. Indeed, KCU's own exports of 
ball bearings to Japan will be subject to retaliatory duties (effective 
September 1, 2005), which may lead KCU's parent company in Japan, Koyo 
Seiko Co., Ltd., to source that merchandise from one of its other, non-
U.S., global production facilities. Overall, the imposition of these 
retaliatory duties will further decrease U.S. exports and exacerbate 
the already worrisome U.S. trade deficit.
      Of equal importance to the Byrd Amendments' illegality 
under the WTO, are its ineffectiveness, cost to the Treasury, and lack 
of accountability. When Senator Byrd sponsored the legislation, he 
stated that the program would primarily benefit U.S. steel 
manufacturers. In reality the program has done little to benefit the 
steel industry, which was ultimately protected through the imposition 
of safeguard measures. Rather, the principal beneficiaries have been 
two bearing manufacturers (Timken and Torrington which was subsequently 
purchased by Timken), which in 2001 received 35% of the total funds 
disbursed under the Byrd Amendment that year. In 2004, these two 
companies received nearly $66 million in Byrd Amendment money. Rather 
than helping an ailing industry, the Byrd Amendment is giving an unfair 
advantage to a few already dominant players.
      At the time of enactment, Senator Byrd also indicated 
that the General Accounting Office (``GAO'') had determined the program 
would cost no more than $38 million. In fact, during the first four 
years of the Byrd Amendment, the United States has disbursed over $1 
billion to U.S. petitioners--money that could have funded other 
important Federal priorities. Moreover, there is no restriction 
whatsoever on how payments can be used by the recipients. Companies can 
use payments to keep otherwise inefficient facilities afloat, to fund 
additional lobbying efforts in Washington, or even to open new 
manufacturing plants overseas, while shuttering production and cutting 
jobs in the U.S. This complete lack of accountability as to how Byrd 
Amendment payments can be used is irresponsible and constitutes bad 
public policy. It also appears that Timken can import from overseas 
plants subject to antidumping cases and after making payments, obtain 
these payments back via the Byrd measure. That type of penalty does not 
level the playing field for all, it simply protects and encourages 
overseas investment by U.S. producers who can initiate cases and then 
be free of concern of resale prices on their own imports.
      The inappropriate and illegal benefits accruing to 
selected U.S. companies under the Byrd Amendment creates perverse 
financial incentives for petitioners to file antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations. The U.S. Congressional Budget 
Office concluded in a March 2004 report that the Byrd Amendment 
actually encourages companies to file anti-dumping and countervailing 
petitions against foreign products in order to collect the payments 
derived from the punitive duties. This conclusion is supported by the 
fact that during the period of 1995-1999, the Department initiated, on 
average, 26 antidumping cases per a year; in the period of 2000-2002 
(i.e., after the Byrd Amendment was enacted), this average doubled to 
52 antidumping cases per year.
      Further, once an order is imposed, the Byrd Amendment 
encourages petitioners to challenge the validity of the data submitted 
by respondents in order to elevate respondents' dumping margins, and 
thus increase the funds available for disbursement. KCU has first hand 
experience of such activity by Timken, who, in the fourteenth 
administrative review of ball bearings aggressively sought to change 
the long-standing methodology used by the Department in determining 
whether models sold in the foreign comparison market are similar to 
those sold in the United States. If the preliminary results of that 
review are indicative, Timken's efforts will be rewarded as a result of 
the increased margins, and thus increased disbursements, generated by 
the Department's retroactive model match methodology.

    In short, the Byrd Amendment unfairly distorts competition, harms 
many U.S. manufacturers, has not achieved its original goals, drains 
the U.S. Treasury, violates U.S. trade agreements, alienates our 
trading partners, and threatens U.S. exporters via retaliation. Now is 
the time for Congress to act and repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the Committee 
on this important topic.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                     Thomas Peacock

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

 Statement of Philippe De Buck, L'Union des Industries de la Communaut 
                      Europenne, Brussels, Belgium
    UNICE welcomes the opportunity to comment on and supports the 
inclusion into a miscellaneous trade legislation of the bill H.R. 1121 
repealing Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    UNICE is the voice of more than 20 million small, medium and large 
companies. Its members are 39 central industrial and employers 
federations from 33 countries, working together to achieve growth and 
competitiveness in Europe.
    The E.U.-U.S. relationship is of fundamental importance for 
European business. Our economies are so interdependent that policies on 
one side of the Atlantic often have repercussions throughout the 
transatlantic marketplace. We are therefore concerned that trade 
disputes are straining the transatlantic relationship particularly at a 
time when cooperation is more necessary than ever for the security and 
prosperity of all. In that context, UNICE strongly urges the two 
partners to comply with their WTO commitments and, in particular, to 
implement WTO rulings fully.
    The failure by the U.S. to repeal the ``Byrd Amendment'' to date, 
which the WTO found to be in violation of WTO Agreements, is of great 
concern to European business. UNICE calls upon Congress to repeal this 
legislation for the following main reasons:

      The current system distorts trade by providing an 
effective subsidy to U.S. producers, who successfully launched a trade 
defence case, in addition to giving them the benefit of the anti-
dumping and countervailing duties applied to dumped or subsidized 
imports. This goes far beyond the purpose of trade defence legislation 
which is to remedy unfair trade practices causing injury, and is 
totally contrary to the spirit and the letter of the WTO agreements.
      Continued non-compliance with WTO rules by the U.S. puts 
seriously at risk the credibility not only of the WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism but also of the WTO system itself. What are the 
incentives for other members to play by the rules if the U.S. does not 
set the example? This is all the more worrying with the lack of 
progress in the Doha Development Agenda negotiations underway. 
Resolution of the ``Byrd Amendment'' dispute would send a positive 
signal to the negotiations on rules where progress will be necessary to 
conclude successfully the round.
      Legitimate retaliatory actions in that context affect 
patterns of trade that involve a broad range of sectors, including 
those outside the realm of the disputed Byrd Amendment. Many companies, 
including U.S. companies, have been caught in the cross fire. The 
situation needs to be resolved.
      Continuing to ignore the Dispute Settlement Body's ruling 
and recommendations would inevitably escalate the existing tensions by 
fuelling further resentment and possible additional retaliatory 
measures at the expense of E.U.-U.S. transatlantic overall interests 
and relationship with other WTO Members.

    For all these reasons, UNICE urges the U.S. Congress to repeal the 
``Byrd Amendment'' rapidly and supports fully the European Union action 
to that end. It hopes that the consultation of all the stakeholders 
concerned underway will lead to that result at the earliest possible 
time.
    UNICE would be pleased to provide additional comments if necessary.

                                                   Philippe de Buck
                                 ______
                                 
    UNICE is the voice of more than 20 million small, medium and large 
companies. Its members are 39 central industrial and employers 
federations from 33 countries, working together to achieve growth and 
competitiveness in Europe.
List of UNICE Members
Federation des Entreprises de Belgique--Verbond van Belgische 
    Ondernemingen (VBO-FEB)
Federation des Entreprises Suisse--ECONOMIESUISSE
Confederation of Swiss Employers
Employers & Industrialists Federation Cyprus--OEB
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.--BDI
Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbande e.V.--BDA
Confederation of Danish Industries--DI
Confederation of Danish Employers--DA
Confederation des Employeurs Espagnols--CEOE
Mouvement des Entreprises de France--MEDEF
Confederation of British Industry--CBI
Federation des Industries Grecques--SEV
Confederazione Generale dell' Industria Italiana--CONFINDUSTRIA
Irish Business and Employers Confederation--IBEC
Federation of Icelandic Industries--FII (Samtok idnadarins)
Confederation of Icelandic Employers
Federation des Industriels Luxembourgeois--FEDIL
Malta Federation of Industry--MFOI (Malta)
Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise--NHO
Vereniging VNO-NCW (The Hague)
Associacao Industrial Portuguesa--AIP
Confederacao da Industria Portuguesa--CIP
Confederation of Swedish Enterprise/Svenskt Naringsliv
Confederation of Finnish Industries--EK
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association--TUSIAD 
    (Istanbul)
Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations--TISK
Latvian Employers' Confederation--LDDK
Republikova Unia Zamestnavatelov--RUZ
Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic--SPCR
Associazione Nazionale dell'Industria Sammarinese-ANIS
Confederation of Hungarian Employers and Industrialists--MGYOSZ
Employers' Association of Slovenia--ZDS
Croatian Employers' Association--HUP
Bulgarian Industrial Association--BIA
The Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists--LPK
Estonian Employers' Confederation--ETTK
Industriellenvereinigung--IV
Polish Confederation of Private Employers Lewiatan--PKPP Lewiatan
The Alliance of Romanian Employers' Confederation--ACPR

                                 

                                              Lafarge North America
                                            Herndon, Virginia 20170
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Lafarge North America and its employees, I urge you 
and your committee to oppose the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It has 
been incorrectly labeled as a ``technical correction'' to existing law. 
In actuality, this Bill would eliminate current deterrents set in place 
for illegal dumping in the United States.
    Lafarge North America employs eight-thousand workers operating in 
more than thirty-five of the United States. We are a leading supplier 
of aggregates, concrete, gypsum and cement. Next year our company will 
celebrate fifty-years of operations in North America.
    In the early 1980's, our industry was damaged by the dumping of 
Mexican cement. The industry drastically reduced cement production in 
certain regions and limited new capital investment because of the 
dumping. In 1990, the United States imposed anti-dumping duties on 
Mexican cement. Even with current penalties in place, illegal dumping 
continues and H.R. 1121 is important to repair instances where dumping 
occurs.
    We believe that inclusion of H.R. 1121 (CDSOA) in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bill 
would reverse an important deterrent to dumping in the United States. 
It is important to note that the CDSOA provision does not impact goods 
that are fairly traded within the United States. The continued unfair 
trade practices are directly related to a Mexican cement market, which 
is currently closed to foreign competition. The CDSOA provision is a 
critical protection for not only our industry, but for all U.S. 
industries that experience unfair trade practices.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Sherry E. Peske
                  Vice President, Communications and Public Affairs

                                 

                                              Lehigh Cement Company
                                      Allentown, Pennsylvania 18195
                                                    August 19, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Lehigh Cement Company to express our strong 
opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections 
to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 
is a highly controversial bill that would repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no means be fairly 
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
    Lehigh, along with its associated companies, is a major North 
American manufacturer of cement, concrete and aggregates, employing 
about 6000 people in the United States and Canada. Its North American 
headquarters is based in Allentown, PA. We operate in 31 states and 
five provinces. Our production facilities in the United States include 
nine gray and two white cement plants, as well as numerous ready mixed 
concrete plants, sand and gravel quarries and facilities which produce 
concrete block and pre-stress concrete. Lehigh Cement's North American 
sales totaled U.S.$2.1 billion in 2004.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
     Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Very truly yours,
                                                  Jeffry H. Brozyna
           Senior Vice President-Corporate Services/General Counsel

                                 

                                                       Libbey, Inc.
                                                 Toledo, Ohio 43604
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. The 
Advisory requested written comments for the record from interested 
parties regarding proposed bills concerning ``technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.'' The 
Advisory included a list of the particular miscellaneous trade bills 
about which comments were requested. This letter is Libbey Inc.'s 
(Libbey) response to the Subcommittee's request.
    Libbey is a leading supplier of tableware products in the U.S. and 
Canada. Based in Toledo, Ohio, Libbey operates glass tableware 
manufacturing plants in the United States in Louisiana and Ohio, in 
Portugal and in the Netherlands. In addition, through its Syracuse 
China, World Tableware, and Traex subsidiaries, it is a leading 
provider of ceramic dinnerware, metal flatware, and plastic products to 
the foodservice industry in the United States. Libbey exports glassware 
to more than 90 countries around the world and also provides technical 
assistance to a number of foreign glass tableware manufacturers.
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Should Not Be Included in a Miscellaneous Trade 
        Bill Package
    In particular, Libbey is concerned about, and opposes, two bills.

      H.R. 1121--``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 
1930''

      H.R. 2473--``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases''

Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Maintaining Fair Trade
    As a major U.S. manufacturer of glass tableware and ceramic 
dinnerware, both import-sensitive products, Libbey is a strong and 
long-standing supporter of strong trade law remedies. Effective and 
useable trade remedy laws are necessary, indeed, crucial to maintaining 
a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers and their workers. Libbey 
thus believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws should be 
rejected because it will make it harder for U.S. companies and workers 
to compete fairly with subsidized and dumped imports.
    Moreover, without effective trade remedy laws in place, trade 
liberalization policies will lose public support.
Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Would Weaken Crucial Trade Remedy Laws, 
        They Will Attract Controversy and Strong Opposition
    A miscellaneous trade bill is not intended to be a vehicle for 
controversial legislation. Bills that weaken trade remedy laws will 
cause controversy. Because both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will weaken 
trade remedy laws, they will cause controversy. Hence, they should not 
be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
H.R. 1121:
      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'').
      CDSOA has strong bi-partisan support from Members of 
Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal CDSOA would attract 
intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to certain eligible domestic parties in industries found to 
have been injured by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute money pursuant to generally applicable criteria when 
unfair trade practices do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only to the extent dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
H.R. 2473:
      This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by 
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern 
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
      This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact, 
it would effect a substantial and harmful change to the antidumping law 
by making in virtually impossible in a large number of cases for the 
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for 
non-investigated exporters.
      The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all 
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted 
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual 
exporters that were investigated.
      Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted 
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data. 
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially 
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are 
not uncommon.
      ``Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual 
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to 
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
      H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating 
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available, 
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many cases, there would be 
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
      ??? substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping 
law. Administratively, H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for 
Commerce in carrying out its statutory responsibilities to administer 
the antidumping law.
      In sum, because H.R. 2473 would attract controversy and 
engender strong opposition from domestic party users of the antidumping 
law, it should not be included in a purportedly non-controversial 
miscellaneous trade bill package.
Miscellaneous Trade Bills Are Not Appropriate Vehicles to Implement WTO 
        Panel or Appellate Body Decisions
    A further reason not to include H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in a 
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are apparent attempts to 
implement legislatively controversial decisions by WTO dispute panels 
and Appellate Body. ``Non-controversial'' miscellaneous trade bills are 
not an appropriate vehicle to effect such legislative changes to trade 
remedy laws.
    Moreover, on both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, 
Congress and the Administration have criticized the WTO panels and 
Appellate Body for overreaching their authority. They have said that 
these (and other) WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are apparent from the 
text of the WTO Agreements. In addition, Congress has repeatedly told 
the Administration to seek a resolution of these controversial 
decisions through negotiations at the WTO, which the Administration is 
currently doing in the context of the Doha Round. Both H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473, if legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
Conclusion
    For all of the foregoing reasons, both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 
would ``attract controversy,'' weaken the trade remedy laws, and give 
rise to strong opposition. Neither H.R. 1121 nor H.R. 2473 should be 
included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                Susan Allene Kovach
                      Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

 Statement of Bob Mochinski, Littfin Lumber Company, Winsted, Minnesota
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    My company produces structural building components-metal-plate 
connected wood trusses and open-web floor joists-which are made 
primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel 
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes 
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices. As a consequence, 
the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged additional U.S. companies to 
file more protectionist trade suits to reap the benefits of a direct 
payment from their marketplace competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment

                                 

                                   Los Angeles Cold Storage Company
                                      Los Angeles, California 90013
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman,

    I am writing to express my support for H.R. 1121, the legislation 
to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), 
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. This law has brought nothing but 
pain to all but a select few companies that benefit disproportionably 
by any measure of fairness.
    My company, Los Angeles Cold Storage is involved in the storage and 
distribution of food products. We are heavily involved with both 
domestic and imported seafood products. My experience with the Byrd 
Amendment is that it has been used by industries that have chosen not 
to help themselves, despite years of warning from industry and 
government that they must make changes to survive. In the case of the 
domestic shrimp industry, they did not take positive action steps to 
protect their business and then chose to rely on the Byrd Amendment 
money to bail them out. The effect of their actions have not only hurt 
the American consumer, but many domestic importers and allied 
businesses like mine.
    My understanding is that the negative effects of this amendment 
have been felt across a wide swath of American industry as more 
countries respond to the WTO's decision that the Byrd Amendment is 
illegal and could legally impose tariffs on American products exported 
to their countries. In other words, our system has decided that a few 
American industries should benefit at the expense of other American 
industries that are innocent participants in this global game of 
political protectionism. And this is being done using a method that was 
ruled illegal by the very organization that we set up to ensure fair 
trade between participating countries. Any logic to this scenario 
escapes me.
    A good example of the effects of this misguided policy was 
identified recently in the Los Angeles Times (August 29,2005) where 
they reported that Mexico has been authorized to ``collect $20.9 
million dollars from U.S. exporters of wine, dried milk powder and 
chewing gum; industries that have not benefited from the amendment.''
    It seems to me that Congress has a responsibility to protect 
American industries and play by the rules of fairness that we help 
establish. The Byrd amendment fails on both counts. If there are some 
industries that have been hurt by dumping, then there are other, more 
appropriate, mechanisms to address their concerns and even the playing 
field for them.
    Let's repeal the Byrd Amendment and allow many American industries 
their rightful chance to compete in the world market instead of 
punishing them for the illegal and misguided protection of a few select 
companies.
    Thank you for opportunity to comment on this important issue.
                                                        Larry Rauch
                                                          President

                                 

                                         Lumi-Lite Candle Co., Inc.
                                                Norwich, Ohio 43767
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    Lumi-Lite Candle Co., Inc. has been a candle manufacturer in 
Norwich, OH since 1958. Lumi-Lite, its employees and customers have 
been and continue to be adversely affected by the predatory trade 
practices of the Peoples Republic of China. Lumi-Lite Candle Company 
hereby submits its written comments in opposition to including H.R. 
1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous 
Duty Suspension Bill. H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong 
bi-partisan support from Members of Congress and from the public. Any 
attempt to repeal CDSOA would attract controversy and strong 
opposition. Congress has consistently refused to include any 
controversial measure in previous bills, such as the subject Technical 
Corrections and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bill.
    Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of continued 
dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. Government to 
eligible domestic industries found to have been injured by dumped or 
subsidized imports. CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy 
rates are calculated or on how much duties importers must pay. All it 
does is simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices 
by our foreign competitors do not cease. CDSOA distributes money only 
when dumping and subsidization continues after an Order. If dumping and 
subsidization cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
    This bill responds to a specific WTO panel and appellate body 
decision that engaged in overreaching their authority. Congress and the 
Administration have criticized this WTO approach. These and other WTO 
decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. obligations that were not 
negotiated and which are apparent from the text of the WTO agreements. 
In addition, Congress has repeatedly told the Administration to seek a 
resolution of these controversial decisions through negotiations at the 
WTO, which the Administration is currently doing in the context of the 
Doha Round. H.R. 1121, if legislated, would interfere with these 
efforts.
    In conclusion, ``non-controversial'' miscellaneous trade bills are 
not an appropriate vehicle to make such legislative changes to trade 
remedy laws.
                                                  George Pappas Sr.
                                                          President

                                 

                          Marine Management Insurance Brokers, Inc.
                                              Park City, Utah 84098
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Marine Management Insurance Brokers, Inc, I would like 
to thank you for the opportunity to comment of H.R. 1121, legislation 
to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), 
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. Our organization strongly 
supports this legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Our organization acts as a ``Managing General Agent'' vested with 
underwriting authority provided by two leading insurers to insure 
seafood suppliers, importers, distributors, and wholesalers who 
participate in and are dedicated to international trade in seafood. Our 
organization provides unique trade insurance products, risk management 
tools, and intelligence to seafood sellers and buyers throughout the 
global market place. As such, we have a unique perspective of the 
dysfunctional aspects of the Byrd Amendment.
    The Byrd Amendment does not rebuild impaired, under capitalized, 
and/or poorly managed American companies, but rather, acts as a conduit 
to draw scare resources from healthy companies, who are then weakened 
by this diversion of capital. The Byrd Amendment does not restrict the 
recipients' use of Byrd Amendment funds, and ``qualified expenditures'' 
which govern the allocation of Byrd Amendment money are not monitored 
or audited by customs or any government agency. In fact, archaic 
methodologies used to determine duties, which are embedded into the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws are so arbitrary and ambiguous 
that duties are higher and more difficult to change as a result of the 
Byrd Amendment.
    The anticipation of Byrd payments flowing perpetually from global 
trade represents a powerful incentive by the American Bar to fan the 
flames of discontent, inherent to the natural economic selection 
process of permitting the healthiest companies to survive and prosper.
    Innovation, hard work, and the proper allocation of scare resources 
rewards companies with growth and prosperity. Competitors are certainly 
put on notice and are encouraged to innovate and create in order to 
take business from the market leaders. Obviously, this process gives 
rise to greater competition, which benefits all consumers in the world 
community and disperses rewards along the pathways of free trade.
    Conversely, the Byrd Amendment simply serves as a disincentive to 
innovate and rewards weak industries for failing to invest to reach the 
next competitive level. Furthermore, the diversion of funds from strong 
companies only serves to weaken the global seafood sector, by diverting 
funds from the efficient delivery of healthy protein into all world 
markets.
    The uncertainty of duty calculations, to be levied in the future 
for current trading periods, creates an unfair trading environment and 
undefinable liabilities for all participants in the supply chain. This 
represents a handicap of global proportions and will adversely impact 
the quantity, quality, and reliability of seafood supply into all world 
markets.
    The Byrd Amendment was passed without adequate scrutiny by 
Congress. Moreover, its legacy of unforeseen injury to American 
companies and its' failure to encourage American companies to rebuild 
their ``impaired'' sectors from Byrd allocations speaks volumes.
    We respectfully request that you include H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous trade bill. We thank you once again for this opportunity 
to present our view on this issue of paramount importance.
            Respectfully Submitted,
                                                    Curtis W. Keyes
                                                          President

                                 

                                Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Ltd.
                                              Kahului, Hawaii 96733
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    We are writing on behalf of the nearly 1,500 employees of Maui Land 
& Pineapple Company Inc. (``Maui''). Maui strongly opposes the 
inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 would repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act (``CDSOA''), a law designed and 
passed to assist U.S. manufacturers, such as Maui, who have been harmed 
by unfair foreign trading practices. By no stretch of the imagination 
can this bill be described as a ``technical correction'' to current 
law.
    Our company has fought expensive battles over unfairly traded Thai 
imports of canned pineapple fruit over the last decade. Prior to 
passage of the CDSOA, we received only prospective relief, in the form 
of assessed antidumping duties, from these unfair trade practices. In 
the last three years under the CDSOA, however, Maui has received $ 7.7 
million in duties collected under the antidumping law. These CDSOA 
funds have allowed Maui to make the investments necessary to maintain 
our competitiveness, and to maintain vital manufacturing jobs, in the 
face of continued unfair trade practices by our foreign competitors. 
Specifically, Maui has expanded its facilities for fresh pineapple, a 
value-added co-product to canned pineapple, and is spending $ 18 
million to build a modem canning and fresh packing plant by mid-2006. 
This substantial investment for our future would not have been possible 
without the CDSOA funds. Maui has also taken on several initiatives, 
such as elimination of the use of methyl bromide for soil nematode 
control, and use of new fertilizer and irrigation techniques designed 
to increase production yields. The implementation of these types of 
agronomic advancements were possible due in part to the funds received 
under the CDSOA, which have aided Maui in offsetting the significant 
costs of waging battle against these unfairly traded imports.
    The CDSOA is working exactly as Congress envisioned. It provides 
sorely needed funds for investment to companies like Maui, the last 
remaining U.S producer of canned pineapple fruit. I urge you, 
therefore, to oppose any effort to repeal the CDSOA.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Brian C. Nishida
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 

   Statement of Senator Tom Bakk, Senator Tom Saxhaug, Senator David 
  Tomassoni, Representative Irv Anderson, Representative David Dill, 
     Representative Tom Rukavina, Representative Tony Sertich, and 
  Representative Loren Solberg, Members of the Minnesota Legislature 
      representing Minnesota's ``Iron Range'', St. Paul, Minnesota
    We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement in 
anticipation of the Subcommittee's review of H.R. 1121, a bill to 
repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA).'' We 
oppose inclusion of H.R. 1121 in any Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, in any 
other legislation, or in stand-alone status. The CDSOA should not be 
repealed.
    Since 2001, import duties collected by the U.S. government on 
dumped and subsidized goods have, under CDSOA been distributed to 
businesses harmed by these unfair trade practices. The distributions of 
the funds have allowed small and large businesses across the country to 
reinvest in critical resources needed to survive, keep their workers 
employed, and regain their competitive footing.
    While this statute applies throughout the country, it is 
particularly important to states like Minnesota which are dependent on 
the manufacturing and agriculture jobs that have been most vulnerable 
to foreign unfair trade practices. In Fiscal Year 2004, over $1.2 
million was distributed under the CDSOA back into the Minnesota 
economy, which allowed businesses to maintain jobs and make critical 
new investments that would not otherwise have been made because of the 
unfair trade practices of foreign competitors.
    Foreign producers--and those U.S. businesses who want to buy 
illegally dumped and subsidized goods regardless of the severely 
harmful effects on other U.S. businesses and workers--claim that the 
distributions somehow affect them unfairly. This clearly is not the 
case as compensation from the proceeds of the duties collected are only 
distributed if the foreign producers continue to use the United States 
as the dumping ground for their unfairly traded goods after trade law 
orders against them have been imposed. That is, only repeat offenders 
of the U.S. trade laws are affected by the CDSOA.
    The CDSOA is a well-crafted statute that guards against U.S. 
businesses simply reaping a windfall from duties collected. 
Distributions are made only to those U.S. producers who invest in their 
company for specified qualifying expenditures such as acquisition of 
technology and environmental equipment, and then only up to the amount 
of those investments.
    These distributions help offset the harm caused by the unfair trade 
and encourage domestic industries to make the investments necessary to 
recover from such injury. For example, distributions to iron and steel 
companies are now helping to pay for much needed reinvestments and 
upgrades at production plants in Minnesota's Iron Range. Current or 
planned expansions would increase northern Minnesota's annual iron ore 
pellet production to more than 44.5 metric tons, up from 32.1 metric 
tons just a few years ago. These operations are important not only to 
Minnesota--they employ 4,000 workers and contribute nearly $1.3 billion 
each year to the state's economy in the form of purchases, wages and 
benefits, royalties and taxes--but also to our nation as a whole as 
Minnesota's iron mining and processing operations produce two-thirds of 
the iron ore used to make steel in the United States.
    Nevertheless, those who benefit from unfair trade are seeking the 
repeal of the CDSOA precisely because it is working. For the 
businesses, workers, and communities hurt by the unfairly traded goods, 
however, the CDSOA provides vital financial assistance for investment 
and survival. Our trade laws and the CDSOA provide domestic companies 
and workers with a fair chance of competing on a level playing field. 
American industries hurt by the unfair pricing of foreign traders 
deserve a chance to fight back. The CDSOA is a sound and reasonable 
policy, and it is working.
    This critically important law should not be repealed in the 
technical corrections and duty suspension bill package or in any other 
legislation approved by Congress.

                                 

                                                  Mexinox Usa, Inc.
                                        Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf Mexinox USA of Bannockburn, Illinois in 
favor of the passage of H.R. 1121, a bill that would repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, commonly known as the ``Byrd 
Amendment.''
    Mexinox USA is the U.S. importer and distribution affiliate of 
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox. Mexinox is the sole producer of stainless steel 
sheet in Mexico and is an important participant in the U.S. market for 
stainless steel sheet products. The U.S. does not produce enough 
stainless steel sheet to satisfy domestic demand, and Mexinox helps 
make up this shortfall, preserving the competitiveness of American 
manufacturers that use stainless steel. We are proud of our 
participation in the American economy; Mexinox is a responsible 
participant in this market and is the largest import source of these 
products.
    The Byrd Amendment is a waste of government money and also distorts 
trade flows by encouraging petitioners to keep dumping orders in place 
longer than they otherwise would, and to include products in cases they 
would not otherwise be interested in. The desire to obtain Byrd 
Amendment money drives these and other decisions in how cases are 
brought, how broad they are and how long they last.
    The government of Mexico, along with ten other countries, filed a 
case before the World Trade Organization (WTO) seeking to declare the 
Byrd Amendment a violation of WTO agreements. This action was 
successful. The WTO stated that the United States was to repeal the 
Byrd Amendment by December 27, 2003. However, unfortunately this has 
not been done.
    The time has come to rectify this. The Government of Mexico, along 
with those of Japan, the European Union and Canada have already 
retaliated against U.S. exports to address the failure of the United 
States to repeal this law. It is not only a violation of international 
agreements; it also is bad for the United States economy.
    We would appreciate your placing these comments on the record of 
the Subcommittee.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Adolfo Acevedo
                                 Finance and Administration Manager

                                 

                                             Michelin North America
                                   Greenville, South Carolina 29615
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf of Michelin North America in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on pending miscellaneous tariff and 
trade legislation (Trade Subcommittee Press Release, July 25, 2005). 
The world's largest tire maker, Michelin manufactures and sells tires 
for every type of vehicle, including airplanes, automobiles, bicycles, 
earthmovers, farm equipment, heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles and the 
space shuttle. The company also publishes travel guides, maps and 
atlases covering North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Headquartered 
in Greenville, South Carolina, Michelin North America employs over 
23,000 people and operates 20 plants in 16 locations.
    Michelin North America supports including the Byrd Amendment repeal 
bill in the Chairman's Mark of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
    The Byrd Amendment is a subsidy to a very few companies that 
undermines American manufacturing. Most American manufacturers do not 
benefit from the Byrd Amendment. More than half the Byrd Amendment 
payments in 2004 went to only nine companies and more than 80 percent 
went to only 44 companies. The main recipients have been in the 
bearing, steel and other metal, household item and food sectors.
    As you know, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled the Byrd 
Amendment to be an illegal response to dumping and subsidization and 
gave the U.S. a deadline of late December 2003 to bring the Byrd 
Amendment into compliance with WTO rules. Based on the tariffs 
collected in 2004 alone, the U.S. government handed out more than $284 
million to U.S. companies.
    Like many companies, Michelin North America relies on imports of 
raw materials or components to maintain global competitiveness. The 
Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on importers of products subject 
to antidumping and countervailing duties. Importers must pay these 
duties which, because of the ``retrospective'' system of duty 
collection, are uncertain in amount; the risk of high duties 
discourages imports whether or not they are fairly traded and thereby 
harms consumers. In addition, foreign producers must see these duties 
transferred to their U.S. competitors. Thus, U.S. consuming industries 
are hurt twice: first by the uncertain amount of duties discouraging 
imports, and second the subsidy to competitors, further discouraging 
imports. The net result is that imports of vital raw materials slow, 
and economic activity and jobs march overseas, putting more Americans 
out of work.
    Two specialized wire rod products, tire-cord quality wire rod and 
tire-bead quality wire rod, are essential in the manufacture of steel-
belted radial tires. U.S. production of tire-cord quality wire rod has 
been quite limited in recent years. Tire-bead quality wire rod has been 
supplied almost exclusively from domestic sources until recently and 
imports, therefore, have not been an issue. The tire industry and its 
suppliers asked for exclusions for these specialized products in prior 
trade cases, and the domestic wire rod producers agreed to their 
request. Unfortunately, that practice was not followed in the most 
recent wire rod antidumping and countervailing duty cases where an 
exclusion for only grade 1080 tire-cord and tire-bead quality wire rod 
was granted.
    Michelin estimates that the tariffs levied on 1070 carbon steel, as 
a result of the Byrd Amendment, cost Michelin North America $500,000 in 
2004. There were virtually no imports of 1070 carbon steel from 
countries (Brazil, Moldavia and Trinidad) with extreme tariff rates of 
more than 90 percent. One of Michelin's key bead suppliers was 
importing steel carrying a 10 percent duty from Canada. Based on the 
fact that 80 percent of the rod used by Michelin was purchased from 
this supplier with a 10 percent duty, it is fair to calculate that the 
additional cost to Michelin was $500,000.
    Most of the 1070 carbon rod that Michelin or our suppliers imported 
came from the ``excluded'' countries, which carried no duty. The 
remainder of the 1070 carbon steel was provided through domestic 
sources. In some cases, Michelin's suppliers purchased higher quality 
1080 carbon rod because it was actually cheaper than the domestically 
produced 1070 steel rod.
    The Byrd Amendment is not constructive public policy because it 
does not require any activity to receive government payments and the 
evidence suggests that little if any worthwhile activity has been done 
with these sums of money. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is good public 
policy for the vast majority of U.S. manufacturers.
    Congress must consider repeal as quickly as possible, because the 
specter of retaliation is real and the threat is growing. The prospect 
of softwood lumber duties being distributed would put the U.S. in a 
position of absorbing nearly $5 billion in retaliation that will harm 
consuming industries throughout the U.S. Congress can avoid this 
looming catastrophe by acting promptly to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    I urge the Committee to incorporate the legislation introduced by 
Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Shaw into the Miscellaneous Trade Bill and to 
attach it to any viable legislation to assure its being enacted without 
delay.
    I appreciate the opportunity to supply these comments for the 
Subcommittee.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Martin J. Wardle
                            Director, Services Purchasing Worldwide
                           Vice President, Purchasing North America

                                 

                                                Michels and Company
                                          Lynwood, California 90262
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Michels and Company and its 200 employees strongly oppose H.R. 
1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to maintain effective 
remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress should not treat its 
revocation as some sort of ``technical correction.''
    Michels and Company is headquartered in Lynwood, California and 
operates a furniture manufacturing plant in Lynwood, California. We 
formerly operated a manufacturing plant in Nichols, South Carolina, 
employing 150 people, which we were forced to close in November 2004.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Irwin Allen
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                            Micron Technology, Inc.
                                                 Boise, Idaho 83707
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to register Micron Technology's strong opposition to 
inclusion of H.R. 1121 in any package of miscellaneous tariff bills. 
This bill, which would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act (CDSOA), is highly controversial and has no place among the 
temporary duty suspension bills and other minor technical corrections 
that are traditionally non-controversial and are typically passed by 
the House under suspension of the rules.
    Micron believes the CDSOA provision is important to the effective 
functioning of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. It has 
been our experience that companies subject to antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders sometimes continue to dump or receive 
subsidies even after duties are imposed. Instead of adjusting their 
pricing behavior as the laws intend, importers simply choose to absorb 
the duty at the border. This deprives U.S. producers the relief the 
trade laws were intended to provide. In such instances the CDSOA 
provision is the only mechanism that can offset the continued injury 
from unfairly traded imports.
    Micron is the last remaining U.S.-based producer of DRAM 
semiconductors, the essential memory chips used in a host of 
electronics products ranging from computers, to satellites, to 
automobiles. CDSOA funds have been used by Micron to invest in new and 
upgraded capacity and in worker training here in the United States.
    Some importers and consumer group have falsely asserted the CDSOA 
provision leads to an increase in the number of trade cases filed or to 
the filing of frivolous cases. The statistics simply do not bear this 
out. In fact, the number of cases filed each year since the CDSOA 
provision became law has actually fallen. Moreover, domestic industries 
do not file frivolous trade cases because they are very complex and 
very costly to prosecute. In addition, only those cases with real merit 
are ultimately successful at the Department of Commerce and the 
International Trade Commission. Even then, CDSOA duties are only 
distributed to domestic producers and workers when the foreign 
exporters continue to engage in unfair trade practices. Exporters are 
given every opportunity to change their unfair trade practices, but if 
they chose not to do so, then, and only then, do the duties get paid to 
the injured parties.
    Finally, we believe it is premature and ill-advised to seek 
revocation of CDSOA. The United States has put forward a proposal in 
the Doha Rules Negotiations that calls on WTO member countries to adopt 
a provision clarifying that CDSOA is consistent with the WTO 
agreements. Why would Congress undermine the position of U.S. 
negotiators at this time?
    For the reasons set forth above, Micron strongly urges you to 
refrain from incorporating H.R. 1121 into a larger miscellaneous tariff 
bill package and from even taking action on H.R. 1121 on a stand-alone 
basis.
    Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Roderic W. Lewis
                  Vice President of Legal Affairs & General Counsel

                                 

                                             MJ Wood Products, Inc.
                                         Morrisville, Vermont 05661
                                                    August 15, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, MJ Wood Products, Inc. and its 51 employees strongly oppose 
H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to maintain effective 
remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress should not treat its 
revocation as some sort of ``technical correction.''
    MJ Wood Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of solid wood furniture 
located in Morrisville, Vermont. Our sales have eroded tremendously due 
to unfairly priced imports from China since 2000 when we employed 107 
people. While the number of employees may seem small in the large 
picture, these jobs are vital to the local economy.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Over 30 law firms that 
represented the Chinese Government and over 100 Chinese companies 
opposed our industry's antidumping petition. The Chinese Government 
even helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we 
won our case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to 
offset the dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we 
fear that some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their 
product in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the 
duties rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the 
law was intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Geoffrey Jackson
                                                          President

                                 

                                                        Mobel, Inc.
                                           Ferdinand, Indiana 47532
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Mobel, Inc. and its 126 employees strongly oppose H.R. 1121 
and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to maintain effective remedies 
against unfairly traded imports. Congress should not treat its 
revocation as some sort of ``technical correction.''
    Mobel, Inc. is located in Ferdinand, Indiana. Founded in 1971, our 
company manufactures solid wood bedroom furniture and has seen steady 
growth, with 2000 being a record year in sales. Since that time we have 
seen our sales plummet some 42%. While a small portion of this can be 
attributed to a slowing economy, most of it is due to the flood of low-
priced, undervalued imports coming from overseas. This decline has led 
to fewer employees, less hours, and lower wages. All of this translates 
into less tax dollars to the government and a continued weak economy. 
Our company does not oppose free trade, but rather supports ``fair 
trade.'' We only ask that other countries abide by some of the same 
stringent rules and guidelines that govern our business in the U.S., 
and that their pricing reflect their actual costs. Currently, companies 
in Asian countries are able to buy our hardwoods (a precious natural 
resource), and ship finished product back into this country for less 
money than we can buy the hardwoods.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers.
    Our industry's antidumping petition was opposed by over 30 law 
firms that represented the Chinese Government and over 100 Chinese 
companies. The Chinese Government even helped pay the legal fees of the 
Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our case, and the United States 
imposed antidumping duties to offset the dumped prices. Despite the 
antidumping order however, we fear that some Chinese furniture 
exporters are continuing to dump their product in the United States at 
very low prices. They simply absorb the duties rather than adjust their 
prices to non-injurious levels as the law was intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
                                                  Kenneth J. Lamkin
                                                          President

                                 

                                    Montana Cattlemen's Association
                                            Billings, Montana 59107
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Montana Cattlemen's Association (MCA) is a state wide organization 
representing over 1,300 cattle producers and their families. Our 
producer members are directly impacted by the effects of foreign 
imports displacing domestic production and having direct impact on our 
domestic prices.
    Montana Cattlemen's Association welcomes the opportunity to comment 
on the bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous 
package, in particular H.R. 1802, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 
1930 with respect to the marking of imported live bovine animals,'' 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1802 is an important bill and one that should not attract 
significant controversy. MCA believes it makes sense to include this 
bill in the miscellaneous trade package. Federal law already requires 
that, in general, imports must be marked with their country of origin. 
For many years, however, the Treasury Department has exempted livestock 
by including it on its ``J-list'' (19 C.F.R. Sec. 134.33) of imports 
that need not be marked or branded pursuant to the requirements of the 
Trade Act of 1930. Livestock should not be exempted from those 
requirements. It is not impractical to require imported livestock to be 
indelibly marked, and it is important to require marking, not only for 
tracking and identification, but to demonstrate the commitment of the 
United States to compliance with established U.S. rules on inspection 
and testing.
    The miscellaneous trade bill has been used in the past to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to specify particular imports for which country-of-
origin marking is expressly required. For example, the marking of 
certain silk products was specifically required by the Miscellaneous 
Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999, and the marking of certain 
coffee and tea products as well as the marking of spices was explicitly 
required by the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
1996. Like these prior amendments, H.R. 1802 logically should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package, and MCA urges its 
inclusion and enactment.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are not well suited for inclusion 
in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. MCA supports maintaining strong and effective trade 
laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for U.S. 
ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as U.S. manufacturers and 
workers. In a fair market, U.S. producers are second to none. When 
foreign competitors flood the U.S. market with dumped and subsidized 
goods, however, the trade laws must be in place to provide a remedy for 
injury caused by unfairly traded imports. MCA believes it would be 
inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, 
but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in 
the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, MCA believes that H.R. 1121 should not be included in 
the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    MCA is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate Body 
of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill 
is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions and 
enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and the 
Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on CDSOA 
and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new obligations 
that the United States never agreed to and which are not found in the 
text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has previously 
directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of these disputes 
at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in the Doha Round 
rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete that process, 
which ought to result in a correction of the problems created by panel 
and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, MCA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments and 
would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into account MCA's 
views on the three bills discussed above.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                   Brett DeBruycker
                                                          President

                                 

                                    Moosehead Manufacturing Company
                                                Monson, Maine 04464
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Moosehead Manufacturing Company and it's 170 employees 
strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be 
preserved to maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded 
imports. Congress should not treat its revocation as some sort of 
``technical correction.''
    Moosehead Manufacturing Company is headquartered in Monson Maine 
and has plants in Monson and Dover-Foxcroft Maine. We are one of the 
major employers in Piscataquis County, one of the poorest counties in 
the United States.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our company alone has seen it's 
workforce shrink by nearly 80 jobs in the last four years. Our 
industry's antidumping petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that 
represented the Chinese Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The 
Chinese Government even helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese 
companies. In 2004, we won our case, and the United States imposed 
antidumping duties to offset the dumped prices. Despite the antidumping 
order, however, we fear that some Chinese furniture exporters are 
continuing to dump their product in the United States at very low 
prices. They simply absorb the duties rather than adjust their prices 
to non-injurious levels as the law was intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
                                                     John Wentworth
                                                          President

                                 

                                         Mountain Avenue Bees, Inc.
                                         Hesperia, California 92344
                                                    August 26, 2005
Ways & Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives

Honorable Ways & Means Committee Members:

    My name is Ron Spears, President/Owner of Mountain Avenue Bees, 
Inc. in Hesperia, California. I would like to express my opposition of 
H.R. 1121 to repeal the Byrd Amendment (Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000).
    I started this business over 25 years ago and currently employ 25 
people in Southern California and North Dakota. We currently run 
approx. 15,000 hives and are members of Sioux Honey Assn. In the last 
18 months we have seen honey prices fall to half of what they were 
prior. This is below our cost of production. As an industry, we need 
help and your support to repeal H.R. 1121 to protect the investments I 
have made in my company, i.e. new equipment, employees, increased 
hives, etc. It's not just about the honey market; it's about the 
beekeeping industry in general. Honeybees in this country contribute to 
over 10 billion dollars toward pollinating various crops in the U.S.
    In closing, I strongly urge you to support the beekeeping industry 
by opposing this legislation.
                                                         Ron Spears
                                                    President/Owner

                                 

                        National Cement Company of California, Inc.
                                           Encino, California 91436
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of National Cement Company of California, Inc. 
(NCCCA) and its over 700 employees to express our strong opposition to 
the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly 
controversial bill that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no means be fairly described as a 
``technical correction'' to existing law.
    NCCCA is headquartered in California and operates a cement plant 
that markets cement to the southern half of the State. NCCCA through 
its affiliates also operates 22 ready-mix concrete plants throughout 
the same marketing territory.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Respectfully,
                                                        Don Unmacht
                                                          President

                                 

 Statement of Lawrence T. Graham, National Confectioners Association, 
  and Lynn Bragg, Chocolate Manufactures Association, Vienna, Virginia
    This statement is submitted by the National Confectioners 
Association and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (NCA and CMA) 
in response to the House Ways and Means Committee's request for 
comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous 
Duty Suspension Bills, Bill H.R. 1121.
I. Summary of the U.S. Confectionery Industry's Position
    The industry welcomes this opportunity to express our support for 
the inclusion of H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act (aka ``Byrd Amendment''). The Byrd Amendment 
must be repealed in order to put an end to the retaliatory tariffs 
currently assessed by Mexico on U.S.-origin chewing gum and sugar 
confectionery. These higher tariffs will negatively impact U.S. exports 
to Mexico, the largest U.S. export market for chewing gum and second 
largest U.S. export market for sugar confectionery. If Congress does 
not act to repeal the Byrd Amendment, our industry will also be left 
open to the possibility of further retaliation by Brazil, Chile, India 
and Korea. The repeal of the WTO-illegal Byrd Amendment is essential 
for our industry to maintain its competitive position in these 
important export markets.
II. Trading Partners' Retaliation as a Result of the U.S. Failure to 
        Repeal the Byrd Amendment
    In November 2004, the WTO authorized eight U.S. trading partners--
Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EU, India, Japan, Korea and Mexico--to 
retaliate against the U.S. for its failure to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment, which the WTO had ruled to be illegal in 2003. According to 
USTR, these countries are not required under WTO rules to make the 
development of their retaliation lists an open process, so there is no 
warning required on the imposition of higher duties. The U.S. 
confectionery industry was hurt by this lack of transparency when on 
August 17, 2005, Mexico announced that beginning the very next day, it 
would begin assessing retaliatory tariffs on two of our members' 
priority products--chewing gum and sugar confectionery. With no prior 
warning, U.S. exporters were suddenly subject to significantly higher 
duties in Mexico, as shown in the chart below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Mexico's Retaliatory Tariffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             2005
            Tariff Code                                  Description                        NAFTA    Retaliatory
                                                                                             Duty        Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1704.10.01                           Chewing Gum                                                0%          9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1704.90.99                           Sugar Confectionery                                        0%          9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Loss of NAFTA Benefits as a Result of Trading Partners' 
        Retaliation
    Mexico's imposition of a 9% retaliatory tariff on U.S.-origin 
chewing gum and sugar confectionery undermines the benefits U.S. 
producers have achieved under NAFTA. NAFTA has reduced tariffs on U.S.-
origin chewing gum and sugar confectionery from 20% before the 
agreement was implemented to zero in 2003. This reduction in tariffs 
has allowed U.S. exports to Mexico to dramatically increase over the 
past 10 years. Mexico now imports four times more chewing gum from the 
U.S. than it in the first years of NAFTA, and imports of U.S.-origin 
sugar confectionery have doubled. The graphs below illustrate the 
direct relationship between the reduction in tariffs under NAFTA and 
the tremendous growth in Mexico's imports of U.S.-origin chewing gum 
and sugar confectionery.



[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The loss of NAFTA benefits resulting from Mexico's imposition of 
retaliatory duties in response to the U.S. failure to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment is likely to severely affect the U.S. confectionery industry. 
U.S. confectionery manufacturers are expected to react in two primary 
ways:

    1.  Production Will Shift to Mexico: Large-multinational companies 
that have production facilities in Mexico will likely shift production 
from the U.S. to Mexico in order to maintain duty-free access to the 
Mexican market. The resulting decrease in demand for U.S. confectionery 
production could threaten jobs in the U.S. confectionery industry. Both 
those workers involved in making the final products, as well as those 
involved in the supplying of inputs, such as sugar, nuts, and dairy, 
are at risk of job loss.
    2.  U.S. Producers Will Absorb Higher Costs: Small confectionery 
companies that lack confectionery production in Mexico stand to lose 
the most from the increase in tariffs on chewing gum and sugar 
confectionery because they will be forced to absorb the 9% tariffs into 
their bottom line order to stay competitive in the Mexican market. 
Mexico's retaliatory tariff will increase their costs and therefore 
lower profits, which could also force companies to reduce output and 
consequently, their workforce.

    The net result of the production shift to Mexico and reduced 
revenues of U.S. confectionery exporters will be a decrease in U.S. 
exports. U.S. exporters have not faced tariffs as high as 9% in Mexico 
since 1998. If the Byrd Amendment is not repealed and Mexico maintains 
its retaliatory tariffs at 9%, Mexico's imports of U.S.-origin chewing 
gum and sugar confectionery are likely to fall back to their 1998 
levels, representing a decline of up to 75% from 2004 levels. Repealing 
the Byrd Amendment would eliminate these retaliatory duties, and allow 
U.S. confectionery companies to resume the duty-free access to the 
Mexican market they are entitled to under NAFTA.
IV. Potential for Future Retaliation from Other Trading Partners
    Until the Byrd Amendment is repealed, the U.S. confectionery 
industry may also be impacted by retaliation from Brazil, Chile, India 
and Korea. All four of these countries have received authorization from 
the WTO to retaliate against the U.S. for its failure to repeal the 
WTO-illegal Byrd Amendment, and to date, none of these countries has 
announced its list of products subject to increased duties. If Chile 
imposes retaliatory duties on U.S. confectionery products, the effect 
would be similar to that of Mexico since U.S. exporters currently 
receive duty-free access under the U.S.-Chile FTA. However, if Brazil, 
India or Korea increases tariffs on U.S. confectionery exports, because 
our members' products currently pay the MFN rate in all three 
countries, U.S. exports would face tariffs greater than all other WTO 
countries, thereby effectively pricing them out of the market. 
Repealing the Byrd Amendment is essential for our industry to maintain 
its competitive position in these important export markets.
V. Background on the Sugar Confectionery, Chocolate, and Chocolate 
        Confectionery Industries:
    Four hundred companies, all members of the Chocolate Manufacturers 
Association and the National Confectioners Association, manufacture 
more than 90% of the chocolate and confectionery products in the United 
States. Another 250 companies supply those manufacturers. The 
industries are represented in 35 states with particular concentration 
in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New 
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. Over 59,000 jobs 
in the U.S. are directly involved in the manufacture of confectionery 
and chocolate products. The employment effect triples when the 
distribution and sale of these products is taken into consideration.
    The U.S. chocolate and confectionery industries are a principal 
consumer of key U.S. agricultural commodities:

      Sugar: 2.4 billion pounds annually or 6.5 million pounds 
a day. Confectionery and chocolate manufacturers are the second largest 
users of sugar in the U.S., most of which is domestic sugar. The value 
of sugar consumed in manufacture of chocolate and non-chocolate 
confectionery is $658 million annually.
      Milk and Milk Products: 1.1 billion pounds annually or 
2.9 million pounds per day. The value of dairy products consumed in the 
making of chocolate last year was $482 million.
      Peanuts: 327 million pounds of domestic peanuts annually. 
The chocolate and confectionery industries consume 25% of the U.S. 
crop.
      Almonds: 43 million pounds of California almonds annually 
valued at $67 million.
      Sweeteners: 1.4 billion pounds of corn syrup sweeteners 
are used annually valued at over $162 million.

    The U.S. confectionery and chocolate industries together generated 
$16.5 billion in sales in 2004of chocolate, chocolate confectionery, 
and sugar confectionery products.
    Together the two industries exported more than $801million in 
chocolate, chocolate confectionery, and sugar confectionery products to 
more than 100 countries around the world.
    In 2004, U.S. exports to Mexico totaled over $39 million in chewing 
gum and sugar confectionery.
    In 2004, U.S. exports to Brazil, Chile, India and Korea totaled 
over $41 million in chewing gum, sugar confectionery, chocolate and 
chocolate confectionery.
    We look forward to working with Congress to repeal the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.

                                 

                                       National Fisheries Institute
                                             McLean, Virginia 22102
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    National Fisheries Institute (NFI) appreciates the opportunity to 
provide the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade with written 
comments on legislation making technical corrections to U.S. trade laws 
and the miscellaneous duty suspension bills. Specifically, the NFI 
strongly supports passage of H.R. 1121, legislation designed to repeal 
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), commonly referred 
to as the Byrd Amendment.
    The National Fisheries Institute is the nation's leading trade 
association for the fish and seafood industry and represents a wide 
spectrum of firms, from small, family-owned businesses to large 
multinational corporations. Our members are U.S. firms that operate 
fishing vessels and aquaculture facilities, that process and package 
fish, that export and import fresh and frozen products and that sell 
seafood to Americans at retail shops and restaurants.
    Fish and seafood products are among the most globally traded of all 
commodities. Many of our large companies export two thirds of their 
products to the European Union and Asia. And since nearly eighty 
percent of seafood that Americans eat is imported, the issue of a more 
liberalized international trade environment is of key and strategic 
importance to seafood community and its consumers.
    While there are many reasons for our continued opposition to the 
Byrd Amendment, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight one 
aspect of the NFI's opposition that has recently developed: the fifteen 
percent surcharge on U.S. oysters exported to Canada. As you know, In 
January 2003, eleven WTO members (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the 
European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and 
Thailand) successfully challenged the Byrd Amendment and on August 31, 
2004, the WTO Arbitrator ruled that those countries could retaliate 
against the United States by up to 72 percent of the annual level of 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties on their respective exports 
disbursed to U.S. companies.
    On March 31, 2005, Canada announced that it would retaliate against 
the United States by applying a fifteen percent surtax on Canadian 
imports of U.S. live swine, cigarettes, oysters and certain specialty 
fish (e.g. ornamental fish, frozen tilapia or monkfish). These 
retaliatory duties will took effect on May 1, 2005, following approval 
of the necessary Orders in Council.
    Much to the dismay of many domestic oyster producers based in the 
Gulf of Mexico, and on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, numerous U.S. 
seafood distributors involved in exporting oysters to Canada have 
halted business agreements with companies based in that country as a 
result of the fifteen percent surcharge. Trade blockades such as the 
Canadian tax on U.S. seafood products will only continue to mount 
unless Congress repeals the Byrd Amendment.
    While the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 was 
originally passed under the auspices of ``protecting'' American 
businesses, the American seafood industry and the millions of families 
that depend on it have proven to be an unfortunate and unwilling 
illustration of why the Byrd Amendment is not a benefit to American 
workers or consumers. The American seafood processing and distributing 
industry employs hundreds of thousands of Americans in plants located 
in nearly every state. The packers, distributors and restaurants that 
serve seafood, both imported and domestic, employ millions more. 
Finally, families who rely on a steady source of cost-effective and 
safe seafood choices as a part of their healthy diet are forced to 
cover the cost effects of the Byrd Amendment when purchasing seafood at 
their local fish markets, grocery stores and restaurants.
    With this letter, the National Fisheries Institute would like to 
reiterate our strong opposition to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 and our continued support for H.R. 1121. We 
encourage the Committee to include the language of H.R. 1121 in any 
miscellaneous duty suspension bills it takes into consideration during 
the 109th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                                      John Connelly
                                                          President

                                 

                Statement of National Retail Federation
    The National Retail Federation (NRF) submits this statement to the 
Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee to express the U.S. retail industry's 
strong support for two bills--H.R. 1121 and H.R. 3416--and opposition 
to one, H.R. 445, under consideration for inclusion in a miscellaneous 
trade bill. NRF is the world's largest retail trade association with 
membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of 
distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, 
Internet and independent stores as well as the industry's key trading 
partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with 
more than 1.5 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 23 million 
employees--about one in five American workers--and 2004 sales of $4.1 
trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 
100 state, national and international retail associations.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), became law as a result of what 
can only be described as an abuse of the legislative process. One 
Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee succeeded in slipping the 
provision into a conference report on an agriculture appropriations 
bill the night before the House of Representatives was scheduled to 
vote on the massive piece of legislation.\1\ Not only were most Members 
of Congress unaware that the CDSOA (now known also as the ``Byrd 
amendment'') had been added to the legislation until after the vote, 
they were denied the opportunity to understand its full ramifications 
through committee hearings, public comment, or debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The provision was in neither version of the appropriations bill 
that had earlier passed the House and Senate. In addition, this action 
violated the rule against placing legislation of this sort on 
appropriations bills. Moreover, because the provision was added to a 
conference report, there was virtually no chance that Members would be 
able to object to its inclusion even if they knew the provision had 
been inserted into the conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since its passage, the CDSOA has proven to be one of the worst 
pieces of trade legislation passed in recent memory. It is an 
outrageous example of corporate welfare that doles out to a handful of 
companies hundreds of millions of dollars in no-strings-attached 
subsidies courtesy of the American taxpayer. To no great surprise for 
those who understood its deficiencies but had no opportunity to correct 
them (including Administration officials), the CDSOA was also found to 
violate U.S. obligations under the rules of international trade. In 
short, the CDSOA is a paradigm example of how efforts to circumvent the 
legislative process result in ill-considered and flawed statutes, from 
which flow a host of damaging consequences.
    Thus, it came as no surprise to the members of the NRF that in 
January 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate body upheld 
an earlier WTO dispute settlement panel ruling that correctly found the 
CDSOA in violation of U.S. international trade obligations. After 
Congress failed to repeal the law by the deadline of December 27, 2003, 
the WTO authorized retaliation against U.S. exports, which four 
countries have already initiated.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The WTO has approved a request by the European Union, South 
Korea, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Chile to impose 
retaliatory tariffs against U.S. goods in an amount equal to 72 percent 
of the duties collected on their exports to the United States subject 
to the CDSOA. Retaliation not only harms U.S. exporters, but, with 
consumer goods frequently the target in such cases, many U.S. retailers 
are also harmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since this successful challenge to the CDSOA, the United States now 
faces the problem of how to comply with the WTO decision when the 
politics of doing so present increasingly daunting hurtles. Supporters 
of the CDSOA--companies and industries that now have a vested financial 
interest in maintaining the gravy train--have persuaded many Members of 
Congress to oppose its repeal. They have done so through a campaign of 
disinformation that portrays the antidumping remedy as a form of 
compensation for what they incorrectly characterize as illegal, 
predatory, and injurious corporate behavior by foreign 
manufacturers,\3\ rather than what the antidumping remedy really is--a 
price correction mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ One common piece of disinformation circulated by supporters of 
the CDSOA is that dumping by foreign companies constitutes illegal, 
predatory activity. This assertion is fundamentally false. Neither U.S. 
law nor the WTO Antidumping Code define dumping--sale at a price lower 
than the home-market price or the cost of production--as illegal, and 
predatory behavior is neither required nor even relevant to a finding 
of dumping.
    The WTO Antidumping Code permits, but does not require, countries 
to employ an antidumping remedy as a price correction mechanism to 
offset what may be deemed, under the provisions of the Code, to be 
unfairly-priced (i.e., the price in the exporting country is higher 
than in the importing country) imports that result in material injury 
to domestic producers of a like product. In addition, if dumping were 
per se illegal, U.S. law would presumably prohibit American companies 
from engaging in such activity. In fact, there is no prohibition in 
U.S. law against U.S. companies selling at dumped prices in the U.S. 
market (or any other market for that matter) even when it results in 
injury to other U.S. companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, NRF and the U.S. retail industry applaud the 
introduction of H.R. 1121 to repeal the CDSOA and support its inclusion 
in a miscellaneous trade bill. Examination of the impact of the CDSOA 
since it went into effect presents compelling arguments supporting the 
conclusion that it is bad law and should be repealed. Specifically, the 
CDSOA has funneled more than $1 billion (with billions more possibly in 
the offing) from the U.S. Treasury general fund--away from spending on 
public education, transportation, energy self-sufficiency, housing, the 
courts, enforcement of our environmental laws, national security, or 
other basic services of the federal government--and into the pockets of 
companies that are unaccountable to the American taxpayer or anyone 
else regarding what they do with the money. It is, in short, unmerited 
and unlawful corporate welfare and a frightful waste of government 
money.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ It is unmerited because the antidumping and countervailing 
duties that are imposed on ``unfair'' imports renders those imports 
``fair,'' by increasing their cost at the U.S. border by the amount of 
the subsidy or dumping rates. As such, when the imports enter U.S. 
commerce, they are no longer ``unfair.'' The assessment of the 
antidumping or countervailing duties remedies the imbalance and adjusts 
the price of the imports to their ``fair value.'' This is all the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws are intended to do. Further 
transferring those collected duties to U.S. producers is thus an 
unintended and unwarranted double benefit to those companies and 
industries. Not only do they no longer need to compete with ``unfair'' 
imports due to the increase in prices created by the offsetting duties, 
but they get a (frequently) huge check from the U.S. Treasury with no 
restrictions as to how they spend the money. One could imagine the hue 
and cry in Congress were other countries to employ a similar mechanism 
to the CDSOA, thereby forcing U.S. exporters essentially to subsidize 
their foreign competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CDSOA virtually defines ``corporate welfare'' that American 
taxpayers can no longer afford, in this day of large federal budget 
deficits. Indeed, the money at stake from the CDSOA is so large for so 
many companies and industries \5\ that they are willing to expend 
millions of dollars on lobbyists to ensure that the CDSOA is not 
repealed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ In fiscal year 2004, Byrd amendment distributions totaled 
nearly $281 million, of which three quarters (approximately $210 
million) went to four industries--bearings, steel, candles, and cement. 
The bearings industry alone received almost $80 million in Byrd 
distributions, of which the lion's share of over $65 million was handed 
over to two companies--Timken Company and MPB Corporation. By the same 
token, one candle manufacturer, Lancaster Colony Corp., received over 
half ($26 million) of the more than $51 million in Byrd money 
distributed to the U.S. candle industry that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A second reason to support passage of H.R. 1121 and its inclusion 
in a miscellaneous trade bill is that the CDSOA undermines the proper 
administration of the trade remedies laws and harms average American 
consumers and the U.S. economy. It does so by encouraging, and in 
effect subsidizing, companies to join in the filing of antidumping and 
countervailing duty petitions they would otherwise not have supported, 
and against products that would otherwise not have been included in the 
scope of the investigations because they are not produced in the United 
States.\6\ For example, the recent antidumping investigations against 
shrimp were supported by a list of more than 4,000 shrimpers and 
processors, all of whom were persuaded to do so through the lure of 
promised cash bonuses from the federal government after the duties were 
imposed.\7\ Those CDSOA disbursements were such an important component 
in this investigation that at one point, when the shrimp processors 
moved to have fresh shrimp removed from the scope of the investigation 
(because it represents such a small share of the market and none is 
imported), shrimpers that catch fresh shrimp launched a lawsuit against 
the processors to preserve their claim to receive CDSOA monies.\8\ Who 
were the real losers? American families for whom shrimp has become an 
increasingly important part of their food diets, and the retailers 
(grocery stores, restaurants) who serve them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Companies that do not support a petition render themselves 
ineligible for the CDSOA government subsidy, and thereby place 
themselves at a distinct disadvantage vis-`-vis their domestic 
competitors. Thus, the CDSOA effectively puts the U.S. Government in 
the position of picking winners and losers among competing U.S. 
companies. Moreover, the CDSOA distribution formula ensures that large 
companies with greater resources at their disposal receive the lion's 
share of the Byrd distribution money, thereby further disadvantaging 
small, struggling U.S. companies. These large, politically-connected 
companies, like ball bearing manufacturer Timken Co. and steelmaker 
United States Steel Corp., end up receiving tens of millions of 
taxpayer dollars for doing nothing more than checking a box on a 
questionnaire from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Needless to 
say, these companies are also staunch defenders of the CDSOA.
    Also, because the CDSOA provides a perverse incentive for 
petitioners also to target subcategories of products that are not made 
in the United States, the CDSOA also forces the U.S. Government to 
handicap U.S. companies in other industries--American retailers, 
manufacturers, and farmers--that have to pay in duties on imports they 
need and cannot get from domestic sources.
    \7\ Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, 
``Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected 
Domestic Producers; Notice,'' Federal Register, June 1, 2005 (Volume 
70, Number 104), pages 31565-31614.
    \8\ In 2003, the Louisiana Shrimp Association (LSA), which 
represents commercial fishermen, seafood processors and retailers, 
originally joined with the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), an eight-
state consortium of shrimpers and processors, to drum up industry 
support for a shrimp antidumping petition. However, the LSA broke ranks 
when it realized that the petition submitted by SAA only sought 
penalties against imports of certain frozen and canned shrimp, but not 
fresh shrimp. With the scope of the petition excluding fresh shrimp, 
the LSA feared its members would not be eligible for Byrd duty 
disbursements. In a February 2004 letter to Commerce Secretary Donald 
Evans, the LSA said the Southern Shrimp Alliance misled harvesters to 
sign statements of support for the petition without indicating that 
they intended to limit the scope of the petition to frozen and canned 
shrimp. LSA also complained that the SSA told fishermen that if they 
did not sign statements of support they would be ineligible to receive 
any Byrd amendment funds. The LSA subsequently asked the Commerce 
Department to include fresh shrimp as part of its investigation because 
an amended petition would ``most clearly preserve harvesters' 
eligibility for Byrd Amendment funds.''
    The fight over the potential CDSOA monies was even taken to federal 
court when the LSA filed a lawsuit on April 29, 2004, asking a judge to 
declare whether its members were eligible for monetary rewards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A third important reason to support H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in 
a miscellaneous tariff bill is that the CDSOA induces recipients to 
oppose termination of antidumping orders either through settlement or 
sunset reviews, even when any rationale for keeping them in place has 
long passed. For example, the CDSOA has become a large obstacle to 
resolving the softwood lumber dispute between the United States and 
Canada. The unwillingness of U.S. lumber producers to relinquish their 
claimed entitlement under the Byrd amendment to some $4 billion in 
duties in that long-running trade dispute has prevented the parties 
from reaching a resolution of that case. Ending this dispute would 
eliminate the uncertainty and higher costs of lumber to American 
homebuilders and consumers, prospective homeowners, and the retailers 
who serve them.
    By the same token, members of the WTO envisioned that antidumping 
orders should not continue in perpetuity. They created a rule requiring 
WTO members to review antidumping cases after five years to determine 
if the order should be terminated. However, the lure of and increasing 
dependence of recipients on Byrd money has resulted in domestic 
petitioners routinely opposing termination of petitions during these 
sunset reviews, even long after the original order was issued. For 
example, the original antidumping order on petroleum wax candles from 
China was issued in 1986. Now, nearly 20 years after the original order 
was issued, tens of millions of dollars in antidumping duties are still 
being collected and distributed to petitioners. In the latest, recently 
concluded sunset review, not only did the lure of Byrd money lead 
petitioners to fight vehemently against termination of the order, but 
it also induced them to try to expand the scope of the order to sweep 
in products that were not under the original order. For candle 
manufacturers, the importance of the CDSOA is highlighted by the fact 
that it is now a line item in their corporate income statements, income 
that for some dwarfs what they earn through sales of the products they 
ostensibly produce.
    Finally, as long as the CDSOA remains on the books, it will 
increasingly act to undermine U.S. global leadership on trade. The 
ability of our trading partners to paint the United States as a 
scofflaw for failure to repeal this law will deal a serious blow to 
U.S. credibility in WTO negotiations and dispute settlement cases that 
are of key importance to U.S. trade policy objectives and our 
economy.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ For example, last year's appropriations legislation required 
the United States to put forward a negotiating proposal to legitimize 
the Byrd Amendment under WTO rules. Such a proposal ought to be a 
complete non-starter, and clearly constitutes an effort to delay repeal 
so that the corporate welfare recipients can continue to receive more 
government checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These are just a few of the reasons why it is high time to repeal 
the CDSOA, and why NRF and the U.S. retail industry strongly support 
H.R. 1121 and encourage its inclusion in the next miscellaneous tariff 
bill.
    H.R. 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign 
affairs exemption to the rule making requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee 
for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
    NRF and the U.S. retail industry also strongly support H.R. 3416 
and its inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. As long ago as 
September 1996, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), as it was 
then called, issued a report evaluating the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA),\10\ the multi-agency 
government entity responsible for administering of the system of 
textile an apparel quotas. That report triggered calls by Members of 
Congress, including Members of the Ways and Means Committee, for 
``broad reform of the covert procedures of the CITA bureaucracy . . . 
The GAO report describes a hidden and erratic process at CITA which 
results in indefensible decisions to impose import quotas.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ United States General Accounting Office, Textile Trade: 
Operations of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements, September 1996, GAO/NSIAD-96-186.
    \11\ House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, quoted in 
``Congressional Legislators Urge Reform of Textile Trade Committee,'' 
Daily Executives Report, Bureau of National Affairs, October 7, 1996, 
p. A-4 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nothing has changed in the last nine years with respect to how CITA 
operates. CITA continues to have a huge negative impact on American 
consumers, particularly low-income American families, and operates 
behind closed doors. Claiming coverage under the ``foreign affairs'' 
exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act, CITA makes decisions 
to impose quotas on imports from China and other countries (most 
notably, Vietnam), out of public view and with no accountability and 
little opportunity for meaningful public comment.
    In addition, CITA's traditional role changed radically in 2002, 
when the President designated it as the government entity responsible 
for administering the China textile safeguards mechanism, ostensibly a 
quasi-judicial administrative remedy. Under the textile safeguards 
procedures, however, retailers and other interested parties that have 
opposed safeguards quotas have no opportunity to comment on whether a 
petition even meets the basic requirements for initiation of a 
safeguards investigation. CITA accepts only written comments after it 
has accepted a petition (which it almost always does), and holds no 
hearings as does the U.S. International Trade Commission that 
administers other types of safeguards remedies. Finally, CITA written 
decisions do not respond to and, for the most part, ignore points 
raised in opposition, and fail to meet even the most basic standards 
applicable to other agencies. Particularly with its expanded role in 
administering the China textile safeguard mechanism, it is simply 
unacceptable for CITA to continue to operate essentially as a ``star 
chamber,'' unaccountable under even the most basic standards and 
protections afforded under U.S. administrative law.
    In a day and age when the United States demands that our trading 
partners adhere to open and transparent regulatory procedures, it is 
astounding that an arm of the United States government is allowed to 
continue to operate in secret and free from any judicial oversight or 
accountability. No U.S. government agency that does not deal with 
national security matters and that has such a major financial impact on 
both U.S. companies and consumers should be shielded in this manner 
from public scrutiny and remain essentially immune from judicial 
review.
    H.R. 3416 would simply open CITA up to public view and judicial 
scrutiny. It is a very modest bill in that it makes no further changes 
in the ways in which CITA operates. It will not restrict or retard in 
any way CITA's ability to respond to charges that increased imports are 
causing or threatening to cause market disruption. It merely ensures 
that the process of responding to those charges is clear and open, and 
that CITA decisions are based on substantial evidence on a record 
gathered during an investigation, and are not made in a manner that is 
arbitrary or capricious. As civil society groups frequently remind us, 
transparency is a good thing. Thus, H.R. 3416 should be completely non-
controversial and is certainly long overdue. NRF strongly encourages 
its inclusion in the next miscellaneous tariff bill and its ultimate 
passage by Congress.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marketing of imported home furniture
    Finally, NRF opposes H.R. 445, regardless of how it is packaged (as 
stand-alone legislation or as part of another piece of legislation). 
The measure is unworkable and unnecessary. It is unworkable because not 
all furniture can bear a sign that is at least 70 square centimeters in 
size that would not significantly detract from the appearance of the 
furniture (e.g., wall mirrors).
    It is unnecessary because U.S. law and regulation already require 
that a country of origin designation be placed on a product in such a 
way that the final consumer can readily ascertain its origin. Currently 
labels are typically placed at the back of a piece of furniture or 
inside it (for example, within a dresser drawer) to provide the 
information to the consumer without marring its appearance and 
diminishing its value.
    Retail companies' long experience with customer relations has 
consistently shown that the vast majority of consumers do not care 
about the country of origin of the products they buy, at least to the 
extent that they demand the information be placed in a more conspicuous 
location. Those who are concerned can readily ascertain the origin 
under current rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, legislation such 
as H.R. 445 is not designed to inform customers more fully, but rather 
to act as a non-tariff trade barrier. As such, it would be actionable 
through the dispute settlement procedures at the WTO as being in 
violation of U.S. obligations under the rules of international trade.
    NRF appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on three 
possible components of a miscellaneous trade bill. We strongly support 
and urge the inclusion of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 3416, and strongly oppose 
and urge the exclusion of H.R. 445.

                                 

                                             Neenah Foundry Company
                                            Neenah, Wisconsin 54957
                                                       May 30, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Members of the Committee:

    On behalf of the 950 employees of Neenah Foundry Company, located 
in more than a dozen states,\1\ I am writing to express our strong 
opposition to H.R. 1121 in the pending Miscellaneous Tariff Bill that 
calls for repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 (``CDSOA''). The CDSOA needs to be maintained to help companies 
such as Neenah Foundry Company, who have been harmed and continue to be 
harmed by dumped and subsidized imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Neenah Foundry Company has distribution outlets in Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 
New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin and sales 
representation in all 50 States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My company has fought expensive battles over dumped and subsidized 
imports for over 20 years, yet in the past we received only prospective 
relief when a case was won. Under the CDSOA, my company has been able 
to apply for and receive a portion of the duties collected under the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws over the past five years. 
CDSOA funds have allowed my company to make the investments necessary 
to our competitiveness in the face of continued unfair trade practices 
by our foreign competitors. Without these funds, we would not have been 
able to make a significant number of investments during this time. The 
CDSOA only provides refunds to companies like mine when unfair trade 
practices continue, despite the imposition of an antidumping or 
countervailing duty order. The CDSOA is an important tool, therefore, 
for U.S. industries to use to combat continued unfair trading 
practices.
    The CDSOA funds, which have been received by my company, came to us 
at a critical juncture. During the CDSOA timeframe, we had undertaken a 
financial restructuring via a pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. The CDSOA 
funds helped us by providing additional investment dollars, which 
contributed to our ongoing investment in cost reducing, facility 
enhancements, and mandatory environmental compliance upgrades. We 
emerged from Chapter 11 on October 8, 2003 and are persevering in this 
very competitive business climate.
    The CDSOA is working exactly as Congress envisioned. It provides 
badly-needed funds for investment to companies, like mine, who have 
been proven to have been injured by unfair foreign trade. I urge you, 
therefore, to resist any effort to repeal the CDSOA as well as to fight 
efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade Organization.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Timothy J. Koller
         Vice President--Construction Product Sales and Engineering

                                 

                                           North American Stainless
                                              Ghent, Kentucky 41045
                                                    August 22, 2005

Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee,

    North American Stainless (NAS) is a manufacturer of stainless steel 
with 1,100 employees in Carroll County, Kentucky. We have smaller 
facilities in Minooka, Illinois and in Riverside, California.
    I am writing to relay our opposition to H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill which calls for the repeal of the CDSOA as 
well as H.R. 273 in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. We expect that you 
will continue to support manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. and 
support the U.S. Government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as 
determined by Congress by fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in 
the World Trade Organization. Fair trade is important for all U.S. 
producers. The CDSOA has had a positive effect on NAS's ability to 
compete against dumped and subsidized imports into our domestic market.
    We appreciate your support.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Mary Jean Riley
                                                     Vice President
                                         Finance and Administration

                                 

                                                    NSK Corporation
                                          Ann Arbor, Michigan 41805
                                                  September 2, 2005
Chairman E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
House Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6348

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    NSK Americas (NSK), a leading U.S. manufacturer of ball bearings 
and other components, with its U.S. headquarters in Ann Arbor, 
Michigan, appreciates the opportunity to offer its comments on the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (The Byrd Amendment). 
Specifically, we support H.R. 1121, legislation introduced by yourself 
and Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota that would repeal this 
Amendment.
    NSK is opposed to the Byrd Amendment for the following reasons: The 
amendment puts our facilities in the United States at a competitive 
disadvantage in the marketplace, creates an artificial incentive to 
bring antidumping claims, and its continued enforcement undermines the 
credibility of the global trading system on which our workers depend.
1. The Byrd Amendment Puts NSK's U.S. Workers at a Competitive
        Disadvantage
    Had the Byrd Amendment received the appropriate scrutiny by 
Congress, many of the problems that it could have been expected to 
cause for U.S. workers would have surfaced in the course of debate 
prior to its passage. Unfortunately, its effects to U.S. manufacturing 
are only now being discussed.
    Proponents of the Byrd Amendment claim to be representing the 
interests of U.S. workers. However, in a globalized economy many U.S. 
workers can be negatively affected by ill-conceived measures, however 
well-intended. NSK Americas is one of the largest producers of ball 
bearings in the United States, employing over 2,100 people in ball 
bearing and related manufacturing facilities in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan 
and Vermont. In order to provide the full range of products that our 
customers need, NSK Americas supplements its offerings of U.S.-made 
goods with other products manufactured by NSK group companies at 
various overseas plants. Some of these imports are subject to 
antidumping duty orders.
    Whereas, previously these duties would be retained by the U.S. 
Treasury, under the Byrd Amendment, any anti-dumping or subsidy 
penalties assessed as a result of a successful anti-dumping or subsidy 
petition are distributed to the competing U.S. companies that supported 
the filing of the petition and the imposition of duties. Thus, the Byrd 
Amendment places NSK Americas in the unenviable position of either 
offering a less than complete product line, or subsidizing our 
competitors to remain competitive at the most price-sensitive accounts.
    There are other examples of how the Byrd Amendment creates an un-
level playing field. In the bearings industry, the typical pattern of 
all producers is the same as described for NSK: that is, some of the 
production is local to the customer base, and imports then are used to 
fill out the product line. In this regard, our competitors, including 
the Timken Company (the largest recipient of Byrd Amendment funds) are 
no different from NSK.
    In fact, in addition to being the petitioner in many antidumping 
cases, Timken is also a respondent in bearings cases as a result of its 
imports from Germany, which currently are subject to anti-dumping 
duties. Amazingly, under the Byrd Amendment process, Timken can reclaim 
the duties that it pays upon importation. NSK cannot. This gives Timken 
the ability to dump into the U.S., and increase its market share via 
the sale of unfairly traded imports, all with impunity.
    Ultimately, under the Byrd Amendment regime, our workers in the 
United States are put at a disadvantage and NSK is pressured to 
contract its U.S. labor force in order to compete in the marketplace.
    Public policy-wise, if the benefits of this subsidy to our 
competition contributed to greater employment in the United States, one 
could perhaps argue in its favor. Yet, the allocation of Byrd Amendment 
money is based on ``qualified expenditures'' by petitioner companies. 
These expenditures are not monitored or audited by U.S. Customs or any 
government agency. Consequently, there is no way to demonstrate that 
the duties paid to Byrd Amendment fund recipients are being used in a 
way that benefits the U.S. economy or its workers.
    In fact, the available evidence shows that this money has not 
protected any particular American jobs. In the bearings industry, 
between fiscal 2001 and 2004, $398 million in anti-dumping duties were 
levied on Japanese imports, with hundreds of millions more levied on 
European imports.
    It is important to note that the level of antidumping duties is 
significant primarily due to (1) the practice of the Commerce 
Department to ``zero'' the value of above-fair-value sales, so that 
even one dumped sale out of thousands will still produce a positive 
margin; \1\ (2) the Commerce Department after 14 years of practice, 
modified its model matching methodology retroactively, thus making 
sales that NSK and other bearing companies believed to have been at 
fair value ``dumped'' as a result of ``after the fact'' rule changes; 
and (3) the highly competitive U.S. market occasionally requires 
pricing that cannot be met other than through a below fair value sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The WTO has found ``zeroing'' to be contrary to the ``fair 
comparison: requirements of Article 2.4 of the Antidumping Agreement in 
multiple cases which have been brought challenging the practice of 
zeroing by the EU and by the U.S. Canada recently dropped its zeroing 
practice to conform its antidumping calculations to the norm 
established through these WTO decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More than $390 million in antidumping duties levied were paid out 
to just two recipients, both of which are U.S. competitors to NSK--The 
Torrington Company and The Timken Company, which acquired Torrington in 
2003. Notwithstanding this enormous outlay, there has been no 
corresponding increase in employment that is traceable to the infusion 
of funds. Rather, Timken--itself a global competitor with overseas 
manufacturing--has invested in new facilities in China while shuttering 
facilities in the United States. This can hardly be the type of 
economic enhancement the authors of the legislation anticipated or 
intended.
2. The Byrd Amendment Provides an Incentive To File Antidumping Claims
    Despite the lack of tangible economic benefit to U.S. consumers or 
the U.S. economy, the number of claims, the number of claimants, the 
amount sought and the average per-company disbursement have been 
rising. In 2004 alone, $284 million was paid out to U.S. manufacturers 
who filed successful dumping or subsidy cases.
    By compensating petitioners and supporters of petitions, the Byrd 
Amendment provides an additional financial incentive to file 
antidumping and countervailing duty cases. Furthermore, by excluding 
from compensation those companies or unions not supporting the 
petitions, the law encourages companies that might otherwise decline to 
support petitions to do so simply to maintain eligibility for 
compensation. This incentive structure undermines the statutory 
requirement that administering authorities use to determine whether 
there is sufficient industry-wide support for a petition before 
initiating an investigation.
    Certainly, the possibility of receiving payments for supporting a 
petition has potential to corrupt the process. A producer otherwise 
disinclined to support the petition may choose to support it to avoid 
being disadvantaged if its domestic competitors are paid for supporting 
a petition and it is not. This is particularly realistic since there is 
minimal economic cost to supporting a petition when one is not the 
petitioner.
3. The Byrd Amendment Undermines Trade Enforcement Policies
    Trade has been an integral component of world economic growth for 
more than half a century. The legitimacy of the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) as an institution is compromised by the refusal of 
member countries to recognize their obligations to comply with WTO 
decisions. While it is in the right of any sovereign WTO member to 
ignore dispute settlements findings, and endure trade retaliation if it 
occurs, the system is premised on consensus and compliance. It is 
ultimately unsustainable, if any country, particular the U.S., chooses 
to exercise that right into infinity.
    NSK relies on a fair and transparent trading system for our imports 
into the United States as well as our exports to third countries. 
Clearly, the Byrd Amendment redistribution of antidumping duties 
constitutes a measure beyond the scope of what is permissible under the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and the 
Antidumping Agreement. The agreements expressly permit the imposition 
of definitive duties, provisional duties, or price undertakings 
(suspension agreements) to offset the effects of dumping or 
subsidization. No other remedies, including Byrd Amendment-style 
distribution of duties to protection seeking companies are allowed.
    Predictably, the WTO ruled in August, 2004, that eight trading 
partners are entitled to retaliation for U.S. failure to comply with 
its rulings against the Byrd Amendment. And, in fact, on September 1, 
2005, Japan imposed an additional 15 per cent tariff on 15 U.S. 
imports, the bulk of which are ball-bearing and steel products. This 
follows the additional tariffs on a range of U.S. products authorized 
by the European Union and Canada in May, 2005.
    Many Members of Congress have dismissed efforts at repeal of the 
Byrd Amendment often noting the limited amount of retaliation 
authorized. It should be a concern to the business community that a 
trade issue has to reach an extremely large amount of monetary 
penalties before Members will address the obligations of the United 
States in the trading system.
    In conclusion, our workers in the United States must have a level 
playing field in order to remain competitive. NSK supports H.R. 1121, 
and insists this bill be included in any trade legislation undertaken 
by Congress this year.
            Sincerely,
                                                          Tom Rouse
                              President and Chief Operating Officer

                                 

   Statement of David W. Hughes, Oregon Truss Co. Inc., Salem, Oregon
    Oregon Truss is a small privately held company of 55 employees 
serving Oregon and SW Washington State. We represent about $7 million 
dollars in annual sales with a payroll of $1.6 million dollars 
annually.
    My company produces structural building components--specifically, 
metal-plate connected wood trusses--which are made primarily of 
softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel connector plates. Our 
products are used mainly in residential homes across the country, as 
well as multi-family dwellings and light-commercial and agricultural 
buildings.
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment.
    Please allow me to offer the following observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
Unbalanced Canadian Competition:
    The Northwest has seen a substantial increase in wood components 
coming across the border from our Canadian competitors. This is a 
direct result of the amendment. It is possible to produce components in 
Canada, import them into the U.S. and ship as far south as California, 
Arizona, and Nevada and do so for as much as 30% less than we can do it 
for domestically. The increased cost of our largest single raw 
material--lumber, makes it impossible for us to compete with this. Many 
`border' state companies like ours are now looking into partial or 
complete manufacture of our product in Canada to survive.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                 

                                             Pacamor Kubar Bearings
                                               Troy, New York 12180
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This letter is in response to a July 25, 2005 notice from the 
Subcommittee, No. TR-3, which requested comments concerning technical 
corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Pacamor Kubar Bearings (``PKB'') is an American owned and 
operated precision miniature and instrument ball bearing manufacturer. 
We have been manufacturing quality bearings for over 40 years, serving 
industries such as aerospace, aircraft instrument, medical and dental 
instruments, computers, flow meters, and many others. PKB welcomes the 
opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with comments on two bills 
under consideration, in particular H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to 
amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others 
rate in antidumping cases.'' We believe the inclusion of these bills in 
the miscellaneous trade package would weaken U.S. trade laws and 
attract significant controversy.
    PKB's operations have been the target of unfair trade for several 
decades. We have, therefore, been committed to maintaining the strength 
of U.S. trade remedies so as to permit fair competition with our 
foreign counterparts. Unfairly dumped and subsidized imports threaten 
not only PKB's operations, but the strength of the domestic industry as 
a whole. Indeed, many U.S. bearings producers have been forced out of 
business as a result of unfairly traded goods. It is imperative that 
our trade laws are not weakened by the inclusion of bills such as H.R. 
1121 and H.R. 2473 in the miscellaneous trade package.
    In particular, H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (''CDSOA''). CDSOA permits the distribution 
of money to domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, 
equipment, and employee-related expenses such as health benefits when 
an industry has been found injured by dumped or subsidized imports. The 
monies distributed are derived from duties owed when dumping and/or 
subsidization continues. If the unfair trade ceases, there are no 
duties to be collected and therefore, no funds to be distributed. There 
is widespread bi-partisan support for CDSOA by both members of Congress 
and strong public support for this law. Repeal of CDSOA would not only 
foster strong opposition and attract significant controversy, but would 
also serve to undermine the effectiveness of import relief to domestic 
industries.
    Similarly, H.R. 2473 should not be included as this amendment would 
prevent the Department of Commerce from calculating ``all-others'' 
dumping margins for non-investigated exporters in a large subset of 
cases, rendering this provision of the law almost entirely ineffectual. 
The ``all-others'' rate, which is applied to all non-investigated 
exporters, is a weighted average of dumping margins calculated for 
individually investigated exporters. When individually investigated 
exporters do not provide Commerce with all of the data necessary to 
calculate a dumping margin, Commerce will use ``facts available'' as a 
proxy for such data either in whole or in part. This means that 
Commerce will supplement an exporter's data with generally available 
public information. Where an exporter has not provided any information, 
and Commerce is forced to rely entirely on facts available, existing 
U.S. law precludes Commerce from then using the resulting margin of 
that individually investigated entity in a weighted average calculation 
to determine the ``all-others'' rate.
    H.R. 2473 would remove the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) 
and (B) of section 735(c) (5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The practical 
effect of such deletion is that Commerce would then also be precluded 
from including any individually-investigated exporter's margin, based 
in part on facts available, in its calculation of the ``all-others 
rate.'' As it is often the case that at least a small part of an 
exporter's dumping margin is calculated using facts available, the 
enactment of H.R. 2473 would mean that in a large majority of cases, 
Commerce would have no usable margins by which to calculate an ``all-
others rate.'' This would create serious administrative difficulties 
for Commerce and would substantially weaken the antidumping law.
    It is also the case that both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
in response to decisions of panels and the Appellate Body of the World 
Trade Organization (``WTO''). Inclusion of these bills in the 
miscellaneous trade package is not the appropriate forum to effect 
changes to U.S. Trade Laws in order to implement WTO panel or Appellate 
Body reports. This is particularly significant as Congress and the 
Administration have been concerned that WTO Panels and the Appellate 
Body have engaged in overreaching in their decision on CDSOA, on the 
calculation of the ``all-others rate,'' and on other issues by creating 
obligations that the U.S. never agreed to and which do not appear in 
the text of the WTO Agreements. The more appropriate form to deal with 
resolution of these issues is through the Doha Round negotiations.
    In conclusion, we strongly oppose the inclusion of H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473 in the miscellaneous trade package for the reasons stated 
herein. This legislation should be non-controversial, and, therefore, 
not include bills that would attract significant opposition and 
undermine U.S. trade laws.
    Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                        Augustine J. Sperrazza, Jr.
                                                   Chairman and CEO

                                 

                                         Plum Building Systems Inc.
                                                Osceola, Iowa 50213
                                                    August 29, 2005
To: House Ways & Means Committee

    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    Our company produces structural building components--metal-plate 
connected wood trusses, open-web floor trusses, stair cases and wall 
panels--which are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, 
galvanized steel connector plates. Our products are used mainly in 
residential homes across the mid west, as well as multi-family 
dwellings and light-commercial and agricultural buildings. We employ 
approximately 75 people in Osceola Iowa, 50 in New Hampton Iowa and 30 
in Williston North Dakota. The two Iowa locations represent about 
$15,000,000 in annual sales and about $3,000,000 in North Dakota.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, our company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like ours, 
and yet we have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                                    Richard Parrino
                                                    General Manager

                                 

                                 Precision Metalforming Association
                                           Independence, Ohio 44131
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA), I would 
like to express our strong support for the inclusion of H.R. 1121, 
legislation to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' 
(CDSOA), commonly known as the Byrd Amendment, in the miscellaneous 
trade bill.
    PMA, headquartered in Independence, Ohio, has 1,200 member 
companies employing more than 150,000 Americans in 41 states who use 
metal stamping, roll forming, spinning, laser cutting and precision 
punching technologies to cut and form flat rolled steel into metal 
parts, assemblies, and end products. Customer markets include virtually 
every manufacturing sector: defense, medical, agriculture, off-highway, 
lawn and garden, construction, telecommunications, toys, large and 
small appliances, consumer products, office machines, industrial and 
consumer hardware, automotive and others.
    The overall metalworking industry employs more than 1.4 million 
workers in a broad range of steel-consuming industries including 
forging, casting, precision machining, turned parts, spring coiling, 
cold heading, tool and die and mould building technologies
    Metalforming manufacturers rely on both imported and domestic raw 
materials or components to maintain global competitiveness. PMA members 
must compete with global companies, particularly from China, every day 
and supports strong trade laws. However, the Byrd Amendment adds 
additional incentive beyond ``leveling the playing field'' for domestic 
companies to file dumping petitions. It encourages those companies that 
would otherwise not join in a trade petition to do so in order to 
receive ``Byrd money'' because they could be at a competitive 
disadvantage if they do not join in a petition that results in 
distributions to their competitors. In this sense, the Byrd Amendment 
adds additional ``punitive damage-like'' incentives to file cases in 
that a victory enriches the filer beyond simply making them whole/
leveling the playing field.
    The Byrd Amendment also provides a ``double hit'' on importers and 
consumers of products subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. 
That is, duties are collected and then paid to their competitors. With 
this unfair structure in place, it encourages U.S. producers to file 
cases, covering as broad a range of products as possible, even if the 
producers only have a small market share and minimal product coverage.
    PMA members and other American manufacturers who rely on steel as a 
major input are very familiar with the use of dumping and 
countervailing duty laws which have been used to shut out international 
competition and increase prices. The domestic steel industry has been 
the most frequent user of U.S. dumping laws. More than half the orders 
in place are on steel products, and they affect the market for all 
steel. As a result, steel users in the United States pay higher prices 
for steel, often putting them at a competitive disadvantage compared 
with overseas competitors.
    Steel users and other U.S. manufacturers suffer because companies 
in line to receive Byrd distributions have a clear incentive to include 
more products within the scope of anti-dumping cases, including 
products they don't even make. They also have an incentive to oppose 
ever eliminating any duty for fear of losing the Byrd money. In an 
unanticipated twist, it can be argued that because the duties on the 
imported products are funneled to the petitioning companies, the Byrd 
Amendment creates a disincentive to produce the product subject to the 
duty in the U.S. thereby continuing the ``tax'' on the imports.
    Instead of anti-dumping duties serving as a short-term corrective 
action that helps ensure fair competition between U.S. producers and 
foreign competitors, the Byrd Amendment has made dumping duties an 
unfair and unwarranted subsidy for a select few U.S. industries. The 
result is that the Byrd Amendment contributed substantially to supply 
shortages, disruptions and high prices experienced by American 
manufacturers who use steel during recent years, especially during 
2004. Millions of steel consuming manufacturing jobs depend on access 
to steel imports both for unique quality purposes and to remain 
competitive in the global marketplace.
    The Byrd Amendment is a blatant subsidy that undermines far more 
American manufacturing jobs than it helps. Jobs lost by steel-consuming 
industries will be much more severe than the numbers saved by duties 
subject to Byrd provisions. Few companies actually benefit: more than 
half the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine companies, 
and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 companies. 
However, those few payout are a windfall--to date, more than $1 billion 
has been doled out because of the Byrd Amendment.
    PMA asks the Trade Subcommittee to consider the needs of American 
manufacturers who rely on both domestic and international suppliers. 
The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to American 
companies. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an essential step in 
allowing consuming industries an opportunity to protect their interests 
and is a matter of fundamental fairness.
                                             William E. Gaskin, CAE
                                                          President
    P.S. Attached to this letter is an excerpt from an economic study 
PMA commissioned earlier this year which addresses the impact of the 
Byrd Amendment on steel consuming industries.
                                 ______
                                 
(Excerpts from this report regarding CDSOA data and its impact on steel 
consuming industries are attached. The full report is available by 
contacting William E. Gaskin, president, Precision Metalforming 
Association)
A Negative Sum Game: The Impact of High Steel Prices on the Steel 
        Consuming and Steel Manufacturing Industries*
by Brian C. Becker, Ph.D.**
And Kevin A. Hassett, Ph.D.***
July 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *: Funded by the Precision Metalforming Association
    **: Precision Economics, LLC; Washington, DC
    ***: American Enterprise Institute; Washington, DC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Byrd Amendment
    Providing extra incentives for the U.S. steel manufacturers to file 
dumping cases is the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''), also commonly referred to as the ``Byrd Amendment.'' The 
bill--in effect since October 28, 2000--directs the U.S Customs and 
Border Protection to take collections from certain AD and CVD orders 
and place them into a special account. Funds from this account are then 
distributed to those parties that originally supported the petition.\1\ 
Furthermore, domestic companies can receive Byrd Amendment money from 
AD and/or CVD orders that had been in existence before the Byrd 
Amendment was even passed. Not surprisingly, these financial incentives 
were quickly realized, and in 2001 nearly 900 separate claims were 
filed reportedly requesting $1.2 trillion in duties.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Schmitz, Troy G. and Seale, James L. Jr., ``Countervailing 
Duties, Antidumping Tariffs, and the Byrd Amendment: A Welfare 
Analysis,'' International Journal of Applied Economics, September 2004, 
p. 66-68 and Ikenson, Dan, ```Byrdening' Relations: U.S. Trade Policies 
Continue to Flout the Rules,'' Free Trade Bulletin, No. 5, January 13, 
2004.
    \2\ Ikenson, Dan, ```Byrdening' Relations: U.S. Trade Policies 
Continue to Flout the Rules,'' Free Trade Bulletin, No. 5, January 13, 
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Byrd Amendment has shifted the tariff recipients from the U.S. 
Treasury to various domestic companies. That is, for each dollar of 
enrichment to Byrd Amendment recipients, the U.S. Treasury loses one 
dollar from what it would have otherwise received. In the four years of 
Byrd Amendment collections--concurrent with a time of increases in the 
Federal Budget Deficit--more than $1 billion has been shifted from the 
U.S. Treasury to specific U.S. companies. As seen in the table below 
and in Table 9B, steel manufacturers have been one of the primary 
recipients of Byrd Amendment funds--receiving more than 20 percent in 
2004. Including steel containing products--principally bearings--
increases the share of steel-related share of Byrd Amendment 
distributions to approximately 50 percent.
Byrd Amendment Distributions

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Total Amount  Percentage of
                                  Total      Distributed       Total
             Year                 Amount       to Steel     Distributed
                               Distributed  Manufacturers     to Steel
                               ($ million)   ($ million)   Manufacturers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001                               231.2            NA               NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002                               329.9            NA               NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003                               190.2         $33.8     17.8 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004                               284.1         $58.1     20.4 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual distributions summarized above, however, may pale in 
comparison to future distributions as a result of the Canada softwood 
lumber matter. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
softwood lumber distributions would be projected to total approximately 
$4 billion through 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Due to the uncertainty over whether the dispute between the 
United States and Canada will result in duties, the CBO has estimated 
such distributions as 50 percent of their projected levels. 
Congressional Budget Office Letter to Congressman John M. Spratt, Jr., 
March 15, 2005 from Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Byrd Amendment adds additional incentive beyond ``leveling the 
playing field'' for domestic companies to file petitions. It encourages 
those companies that would otherwise not sign onto the petition to do 
so in order to receive ``Byrd money'' and to keep from being left at a 
competitive disadvantage by refusing to sign a petition that could 
result in distributions to their competitors. In this sense, the Byrd 
Amendment adds additional ``punitive damage-like'' incentives to file 
cases in that a victory enriches the filer beyond simply making them 
whole/leveling the playing field.
    Two common criticisms with the Byrd Amendment are: (1) it has 
generally been interpreted as not conforming to international trade 
standards; and (2) it provides financial incentives for companies to 
file AD/CVD suits as a means to generate income, as opposed to a forum 
to address an unfair trading practice. In September 2002 the WTO 
dispute settlement committee found the Byrd Amendment in violation of 
several WTO agreements, which state that governments cannot distribute 
antidumping duties to protection-seeking companies. Because the United 
States had taken no action to respond to this finding, in January of 
2004 the European Union along with several other countries sought 
higher tariffs against U.S. import products.\4\ Further retaliation has 
been announced by Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Ikenson, Dan, ```Byrdening' Relations: U.S. Trade Policies 
Continue to Flout the Rules,'' Free Trade Bulletin, No. 5, January 13, 
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In essence, the Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on importers 
and consumers of products subject to antidumping and countervailing 
duties. That is, their duties are paid to their competitors. With this 
structure in place, it encourages U.S. producers to file cases and to 
expand their coverage to a wide range of products--even if they only 
have a trivial market share.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Under this structure, a U.S. company with a small market share 
can actually earn more revenue from Byrd Amendment distributions than 
through its own operations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 

      Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
                                                            America
                                            Billings, Montana 59107
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
America (R-CALF USA) is submitting these comments in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for written comments for the record from all 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. R-CALF USA is a national, non-
profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability 
and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA has more than 
18,000 members, primarily cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and 
feedlot owners, located in 47 states.
    R-CALF USA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bills being 
considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous package, in particular 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. R-CALF USA supports maintaining strong and effective 
trade laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for 
U.S. ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as U.S. manufacturers 
and workers. In a fair market, U.S. producers are second to none. When 
foreign competitors flood the U.S. market with dumped and subsidized 
goods, however, the trade laws must be in place to provide a remedy for 
injury caused by unfairly traded imports. R-CALF USA believes it would 
be inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those 
laws, but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are 
included in the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, R-CALF USA believes that H.R. 1121 should not be 
included in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    R-CALF USA is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to 
be efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate 
Body of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade 
bill is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions 
and enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and 
the Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and 
the Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on 
CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new 
obligations that the United States never agreed to and which are not 
found in the text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has 
previously directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of 
these disputes at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in 
the Doha Round rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete 
that process, which ought to result in a correction of the problems 
created by panel and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, R-CALF USA appreciates the opportunity to submit these 
comments and would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into 
account R-CALF USA's views on the two bills discussed above.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                   Leo R. McDonnell
                                                          President

                                 

                                       Raymour & Flanigan Furniture
                                          Liverpool, New York 13088
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, I would like to thank 
you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal 
the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly 
known as the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this 
legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, one of the largest furniture and 
bedding retailers in the nation, is headquartered in Liverpool, N.Y., 
in suburban Syracuse. The company currently employs more than 2,900 
associates, and operates 56 retail stores, plus three clearance 
centers, 13 customer service centers and two distribution centers 
throughout Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York 
and Pennsylvania.
    Founded in 1947 with a single store in downtown Syracuse, N.Y., 
Raymour & Flanigan Furniture has now grown to be the ninth largest 
conventional furniture & bedding retailer in the U.S., according to the 
industry's leading trade publication, Furniture Today, and based on 
2004 revenues of $531.6 million.
    Raymour & Flanigan Furniture partners with manufacturers who source 
products domestically and globally. To provide our customers with the 
quality and values they want, we source domestically what is best made 
in the USA, and source globally what is best made elsewhere. Though we 
love to sell ``Made in the USA,'' imported products sometimes provide 
our customers with styles and values they prefer at the prices they 
demand.
    In 2003, as you know, a group of domestic furniture manufacturers 
worked to restrict consumer access to affordable high quality wooden 
bedroom furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition against furniture 
from China with the Commerce Department and the International Trade 
Commission. We believe that some of these manufacturers filed the 
petition in order to line up to receive millions of dollars in special 
interest payments through the Byrd Amendment.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden 
bedroom furniture, Raymour & Flanigan Furniture not only must pay the 
duties, but also see the monies in the future transferred to some of 
the same manufacturers that petitioned for the duties. Many of those 
manufacturers have retail components, giving an unfair advantage to our 
retail competitors. These duties also, unfortunately, raise prices for 
all consumers, reducing the potential customer base for the furniture 
industry.
    U.S. producers file trade actions because they know that they will 
be eligible for Byrd money. In this sense, the Byrd Amendment adds 
additional ``punitive damage-like'' incentives to file cases; in other 
words, a victory enriches the filer. U.S. companies in line to receive 
these payments also have a clear incentive to include more products 
within the scope of anti-dumping cases--even including products not 
made in the U.S.--and to oppose ever eliminating any duty for fear of 
losing the Byrd money. Additionally, because the duties on the imported 
products are funneled to the petitioning companies, the Byrd Amendment 
creates a disincentive to produce the product subject to the duty in 
the U.S. Indeed, Byrd recipients can import the products from China 
themselves and be insulated from antidumping duties.
    Adding insult to injury, the furniture manufacturers who filed the 
trade petition will not be required to use the Byrd money they receive 
for job retraining, additional hiring or to improve their 
competitiveness. Instead, these companies simply receive a government 
``subsidy ``on every bedroom product imported into this country that 
goes right into their bottom line.
    Raymour & Flanigan Furniture's customers across the Northeast 
depend on having access to quality furniture for their homes at 
reasonable prices. We ask that the Trade Subcommittee consider the 
needs of retailers who import products, our associates, and our 
customers. The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies.
    As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R. 
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill. Thank you for your leadership on 
this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Neil Goldberg
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:

       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.

    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:

       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.

    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                          Rich Products Corporation
                                                  Buffalo, NY 14213
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman

    I am writing to you as President and CEO of Rich Products 
Corporation, and welcome the opportunity to express my support for HR 
1121 legislation to repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act'', commonly called the ``Byrd Amendment''.
    Rich Products is a privately held corporation based in Buffalo, New 
York, and has successfully produced and marketed frozen food products 
for American consumers for 60 years, growing to a $2 billion sales 
level in 2005 and employing over 6000 Associates. Our Vision for our 
company is to provide the Grocery and Food Service industries with 
great tasting, competitively-priced products.
    We are continuously seeking to make our supply chain low cost and 
efficient, and this requires that we operate in the global market for 
raw materials and ingredients. As a result we are almost exclusively 
dependent on imports of raw shrimp for our Rich SeaPak operation which 
processes over 25 million pounds of shrimp a year. The imposition of 
``anti-dumping tariffs' on selected shrimp imports, as a result of the 
Byrd amendment, has more than a marginal impact on us, as the exporters 
pass on these egregious costs to Rich's.
    Further, with the ``Byrd Amendment'' money being funneled to the 
U.S. shrimp industry petitioners, there is no urgency for, or indeed 
evidence of, domestic producers improving production efficiencies and 
competing in the global market place. American shrimpers have not 
stepped up to competition and adopted modern aquacultural techniques to 
supply the growing American demand. Instead they seek to benefit from 
the worst example of ``Corporate Welfare'' I have witnessed.
    The Byrd Amendment was passed without appropriate Congressional 
consideration and sends the wrong message to our trading partners. At 
Rich Products we believe in open and fair trade for both our domestic 
and international operations. We look to Congress, the Commerce 
Department, and through them, the WTO to make the playing field level 
for our company.
    The potential retaliation against American exports if Congress 
fails to repeal the Byrd measure will be a huge cost to the 
manufacturers in our country, a cost to be borne ultimately by the 
American consumer.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue, 
and request that you include H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Robert E, Rich Jr.
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

                                            Rich-SeaPak Corporation
                                   St. Simons Island, Georgia 31522
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of my company, I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this legislation's 
inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Our company, Rich-SeaPak Corporation, is a domestic shrimp 
processor, founded in 1948, and headquartered in St. Simons Island, 
Georgia. We are owned by Rich Products Corporation of Buffalo, New 
York. We operate three processing plants--two in Georgia and one in 
Texas employing over 1,000 people in manufacturing, sales and 
marketing. Rich-SeaPak opposes tariffs, quotas, and other trade 
restrictions that interrupt the supply or interfere with the 
affordability of all seafood products.
    To supply ample amounts of shrimp for families to enjoy at our 
nation's restaurants or find at grocery stores and other retail 
outlets, ASDA members rely on imported products.
    We strongly believe that the group of domestic seafood processors 
that filed an anti-dumping petition with the Commerce Department and 
the U.S. International Trade Commission against imported shrimp from 
six countries was primarily motivated by the prospect of receiving Byrd 
money. In fact, we have seen flyers from law firms representing the 
shrimpers marketing the prospect of Byrd monies that were used to 
recruit petitioners for the shrimp case. Far from changing their 
business strategy to keep up with their global competitors, as we have 
encouraged the domestic industry to do for years, we strongly believe 
that the petition was filed in order to pave the way for receiving 
millions of dollars in special interest payments through the Byrd 
Amendment.
    Byrd payments were so prominent in the motivation for this case 
that when the shrimp processors later moved to have fresh shrimp 
removed from the scope of the investigation, shrimpers that catch fresh 
shrimp launched a lawsuit against the processors to protect their Byrd 
monies.
    We also believe that the domestic shrimpers' opposition to the 
current ITC Changed Circumstance Investigation for shrimp imports from 
Thailand and India, initiated by the ITC because of the devastation 
caused by the December 2004 Tsunami, is based on the fear of losing 
Byrd monies.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on shrimp imports 
from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand and Vietnam, Rich-SeaPak 
not only must pay the duties but also see the monies in the future 
transferred to the domestic industry as a reward for filing their 
lawsuit. U.S. businesses are thus sent the wrong message from our 
government: that trade protectionism makes for a better business plan 
than modernization.
    The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than 
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine 
companies, and more than 80 percent of the payments went to only 44 
companies nationwide.
    U.S. producers in a wide variety of sectors are now filing trade 
actions because they know they will be eligible for Byrd money. In this 
sense, the Byrd Amendment adds additional punitive damage-like 
incentives to file cases, in that a victory enriches the filer beyond 
simply ``leveling the playing field.'' U.S. companies in line to 
receive these payments also have a clear incentive to include more 
products within the scope of anti-dumping cases and to oppose ever 
eliminating any duty for fear of losing the Byrd money.
    The Byrd Amendment is simply bad domestic policy. The members of 
the domestic shrimp industry who filed the trade petition will not be 
required to use Byrd monies that they receive to take the steps 
necessary to modernize or improve their competitiveness. Instead, they 
can count on receiving a government handout for every subject shrimp 
imported into this country.
    The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies. We request that you include H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous trade bill and appreciate the opportunity to comment on 
this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Jack C. Kilgore
                                                          President

                                 

                                                   Rinker Materials
                                     West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Rinker Materials and its 11,000 employees to 
express our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can 
by no means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to 
existing law.
    Rinker Materials Corporation is headquartered in West Palm Beach, 
FL, and is one of the largest producers of construction materials in 
the U.S. with products including concrete, concrete block, crushed 
stone and sand, asphalt, cement, concrete pipe and products, 
polyethylene pipe, wallboard and other building materials distribution.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Eddie Allsopp
                                          President Cement Division

                                                        Karl Watson
      President and Chief Operating Officer, Construction Materials

                                 

                     Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc.
                                           Encino, California 91436
                                                    August 15, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Sandberg Furniture Mfg., Company, Inc. and its employees 
strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be 
preserved to maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded 
imports. Congress should not treat its revocation as some sort of 
``technical correction.''
    Sandberg Furniture Mfg. Company, Inc. is headquartered in Los 
Angeles, CA and has its operation in three plants.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                   John A. Sandberg
                                                          President

                                                      Phillip Sweet
                                       Vice-President Manufacturing

                                                    Michael Bagwell
                                                      Plant Manager

                                 

                                         Schaeffler Group USA, Inc.
                                           New York, New York 10022
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    This letter is written on behalf of the Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., 
headquartered in Fort Mill, South Carolina, in response to the 
Subcommittee on Trade's solicitation of written comments to the record 
from interested parties concerning technical corrections to U.S. trade 
laws and potential inclusion of pending bills in the miscellaneous 
trade package. We hereby strongly urge the Subcommittee to include in 
any miscellaneous trade bill H.R. 1121, to repeal Sec. 754 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675c, the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``Byrd amendment''). The 
Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. employs over 4,000 people in this country, 
and manufactures bearings, engine components, clutches and torque 
converters from facilities located in South Carolina, Connecticut, Ohio 
and Missouri.
I. Introduction
    The CDSOA is a blatant and illegal subsidy awarded to a very select 
group of American companies. While the law clearly benefits the chosen 
few, its effect is overwhelmingly negative for most international and 
domestic companies alike, to say nothing of the consuming public. 
Moreover, by ignoring the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') ruling 
that the law is illegal, the U.S. government is undermining the rule of 
law and U.S. interests here and abroad. It is therefore essential that 
H.R. 1121, which would repeal the Byrd amendment, be included in the 
miscellaneous trade bill and, ultimately, be enacted into law.
II. Background
    In October 2000, the Congress enacted the CDSOA as part of the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001.\1\ The CDSOA was inserted 
into the Act without being reviewed by any committee having 
jurisdiction over trade matters in either the House or the Senate. 
President Clinton signed the bill on October 28, 2000, but protested 
the inclusion of the CDSOA provision, recognizing that it violated U.S. 
international trade obligations. The Byrd amendment has been highly 
controversial since it was signed into law, and it is generally agreed 
that it would not have withstood Congressional scrutiny had it been 
considered and evaluated as separate legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-387, 
114 Stat. 1549 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CDSOA revised the long-standing practice in the United States 
whereby customs duties received from the importation of merchandise 
covered by an antidumping or countervailing duty order are paid into 
and remain a part of the United States Treasury. Under the CDSOA, the 
domestic producers that filed and/or supported the original antidumping 
or countervailing duty petitions are instead paid those monies 
collected after U.S. Customs and Border Protection deposits them in the 
U.S. Treasury's Offset Account. The CDSOA has resulted in more than $1 
billion in antidumping and countervailing duties dispersed by Customs 
to affected domestic producers through 2004.\2\ More than half the Byrd 
amendment payments in 2004 went to only nine companies, and more than 
80 percent of the payments went to only 44 companies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php
    \3\ http://www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 9, 2001, nine members of the WTO--Australia, Brazil, 
Chile, the European Community, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and 
Thailand--requested consultations with the United States to contest the 
legality of the Byrd amendment.\4\ Failure to resolve the dispute 
during consultations led to the establishment of a Dispute Settlement 
Body (``DSB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Request for Consultations, WT/DS217/1 (Jan. 9, 2001), available 
at http://wto.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joined by Canada and Mexico, the complaining parties argued that 
the CDSOA violated the GATT, the Antidumping Agreement (``AD 
Agreement''), and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement 
(``SCM Agreement'').\5\ After due consideration, the DSB held that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with articles 5.4, 18.1, and 18.4 of the AD 
Agreement; articles 11.4, 32.1, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; articles 
VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; and article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement.\6\ The panel therefore ordered the United States to conform 
the CDSOA to these international agreements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Report of the Panel--Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
of 2000, WT/DS217/R, P1.4 (Sept. 16, 2002), available at http://
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/217_234r_a_e.pdf [hereinafter 
Panel Report].
    \6\ See id. at 8.1.
    \7\ See id. at 8.4-8.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 22, 2002, the United States appealed the DSB's decision 
to the Appellate Body for subsequent review, arguing that the CDSOA was 
a permissible, specific relief action against dumping or subsidization, 
and was thus consistent with article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and 
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.\8\ In a January 16, 2003 report, the 
Appellate Body affirmed the DSB's determination that the CDSOA violated 
the United States' international obligations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See WTO Report of the Appellate Body--Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R (Jan. 16, 
2003).
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DSB adopted the report of the panel as modified by the 
Appellate Body on January 27, 2003.\10\ The deadline for the United 
States to conform the CDSOA to WTO principles expired on December 27, 
2003.\11\ After failing to do so, eight member nations in January 2004 
petitioned the DSB to allow retaliation.\12\ In August of that year, 
the arbitrator decided that retaliatory sanctions could be applied 
equivalent to seventy-two percent of the disbursements made under the 
CDSOA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Decision by the Arbitrator, United States--Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000: Recourse to Arbitration by the United 
States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU, ST/DS217/ARB (Aug. 31, 2004).
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id. at 5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The CDSOA is illegal
    The first reason the CDSOA should be repealed is because it is 
illegal. As explained above, the DSB has determined that the law is 
inconsistent with WTO requirements. While a WTO decision is not binding 
on a member state, the United States is undermining its role as an 
international leader by continuing to ignore the WTO's ruling.
    A fundamental principle of the global economy is that no national 
entity has the ability to function independent of others. The influence 
that national economies have on each other elicits the need for an 
international trading framework. The GATT system was founded upon rules 
of non-discrimination, trade liberalization, fair competition, and 
sovereignty.\14\ The WTO, in incorporating the provisions of GATT and 
its amendments, functions as ``reciprocally and mutually advantageous 
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other 
barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in 
international trade relations.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, pmbl., Oct. 30, 
1947, 61 Stat. A-11, T.I.A.S. 1700, 55 U.N.T.S. 194.
    \15\ GATT, pmbl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The WTO refined specific provisions of the GATT with respect to 
antidumping procedures in the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
in order to further harmonize the international trade system. The 
effort to preserve fairness is an essential element of the 
Agreement.\16\ The United States, by not complying with the WTO 
decision, is abandoning the principles of international trade which it 
successfully advocated over the past half century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ This is evidenced by the fact that duties ``shall remain in 
force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping 
which is causing injury.'' Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Sec. 2.1 (1994), 
available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. The CDSOA is bad for the global economy
    The Byrd amendment is fundamentally unfair to global competitors. 
The CDSOA encourage U.S. producers to file and support trade actions 
knowing they will be eligible for subsidies under the CDSOA if they do 
so. There is also a legitimate fear that the United States' decision to 
ignore the WTO ruling will lead to a domino effect, with other 
countries adopting protectionist measures and ignoring any subsequent 
WTO decisions.\17\ To the extent other countries adopt comparable 
policies, not repealing this law may lead to further interference in 
the ability of U.S. exporters to compete in the global trading system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Charkravarthi Raghavan, Three Disputes Sent to Panel, Third 
World Network (July 24, 2001), at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/
disputes/htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The CDSOA is bad for the U.S. economy
    The CDSOA should be repealed because it is likewise detrimental to 
the economic welfare of the United States. It provides for the annual 
payment of a significant unearned subsidy to a very few companies that, 
far from assisting American manufacturing, actually undermines it.\18\ 
The CDSOA harms more American companies than it helps. It has a double 
impact on American manufacturers who use products subject to 
antidumping and countervailing duties. The imposition of dumping or 
countervailing duties on imported products is designed to equalize the 
so-called competitive advantage those products enjoy over comparable 
products produced here. This is the basic economic rationale that 
underlies the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. American 
importers pay these duties. By transferring these payments to other 
U.S. competitors, the equalization factor is eliminated, and a distinct 
competitive advantage is shifted to those other competitors. This is 
not what the trade laws are designed to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ http://www.citac.info/press/release/2005/08_01.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For U.S. companies within the field of a subject antidumping case, 
the CDSOA also encourages inefficient production. Domestic firms that 
have ceased producing the subject merchandise now have an incentive to 
resume production and receive the distribution. Under the law, a firm 
can receive distributions only if it is in the business of producing 
the good in question. That a company ceased production after the duty 
was imposed suggests that it was not as competitive a producer as the 
other firms in the market. A firm that returns to production, 
therefore, may inefficiently employ capital, labor, land, and other 
resources that would be more productively employed in producing another 
good or service.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Office of Management and Budget, Economic Analysis of the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, (Mar. 2, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firms that have not ceased production, on the other hand, are 
encouraged by the CDSOA to increase their output beyond the levels 
signaled by market incentives. The Byrd amendment stipulates that 
``[t]he distributions shall be made on a pro rata basis based on new 
and remaining qualifying expenditures,'' where qualifying expenditures 
consist of expenditures on manufacturing facilities, equipment, 
research and development, and just about anything else. Many of these 
expenditures vary with the scale of production. The effect of the CDSOA 
is to subsidize the perceived cost of production by domestic firms.\20\ 
This affects not only the companies involved in the dumping case. Such 
firms increase their output beyond the point where the unsubsidized 
cost to the firm, and thus to the economy, is balanced by the price. 
Since the price or value is less than the cost to the economy of that 
additional output, the economic welfare of the country is reduced.\21\ 
The overall net effect of the distributions mandated by the CDSOA is to 
cause the firms receiving the distributions to produce output at 
greater cost than it is worth, and to cause domestic firms that do not 
receive the distributions to restrict output that would be worth more 
than the cost of production. As a consequence, U.S. gross domestic 
product and gross national product decline.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CDSOA also significantly increases transaction costs. The 
resources necessary to pursue a successful antidumping or 
countervailing duty claim (i.e., costs of lawyers, economists, and 
lobbyists) are transaction costs that add to the social cost of the 
laws. By increasing the incentives for firms to file and pursue 
antidumping petitions and by adding similar costs associated with 
implementing the distribution of duty revenues, the CDSOA increases 
those social costs.
    Moreover, by increasing the likelihood of cases being filed and/or 
maintained, the law increases the burden on the federal government. 
These cases must be administered by the International Trade Commission 
and the Department of Commerce, consuming time and resources. At the 
same time, the CDSOA funnels money collected from the imposition of 
duties from government coffers to the few companies that petition for 
those duties. Such funneling has totaled more than $1 billion to date, 
with billions more waiting in the wings. Taking money from the federal 
government, especially at a time of huge budget deficits, to give it to 
a tiny segment of U.S. industry that is not entitled to it consonant 
with our country's international trading obligations, is hardly sound 
fiscal policy. The actual cost of the provision is stated directly by 
the Adminstration's FY2004 budget proposal:
    The budget also proposes to repeal a Treasury-administered 
provision in the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act, the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, that annually pays 
approximately $230 million to complainants in antidumping/
countervailing-duty cases. These corporate subsidies effectively 
provide a significant ``double-dip'' benefit to industries that already 
gain protection from the increased import prices provided by 
countervailing tariffs. While the Administration does not believe that 
these payments are inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations, repeal of 
the provision would allow the funds to be directed to higher priority 
uses.
    Accordingly, not only would repeal of the CDSOA not cost the 
Government anything, it would actually result in a net annual 
Governmental benefit of approximately $230 Million.
VI. U.S. Exporters are now exposed to WTO-sanctioned retaliation by
        trading partners
    Not only is the CDSOA, in itself, bad for the U.S. economy, but now 
other countries are in the process of retaliating against the United 
States for not adhering to the WTO ruling. Starting September 1, 2005, 
Japan will impose a 15% duty on steel imports from the U.S., targeting 
products such as ball bearings (which our company produces in the U.S.) 
and airplane parts (which one of our related companies also 
manufactures here). These additional tariffs could amount to as much as 
$51 million. Japan's action follows the European Union's and Canada's 
decision to impose retaliatory duties on U.S.-made goods, which began 
on May 1, 2005. The EU imposed a 15% duty on various types of paper, 
clothing fabrics, footwear, and machinery--amounting to tariffs worth 
approximately $28 million, and Canada imposed like duties on 
cigarettes, oysters and live swine, worth about $14 million. On August 
18, 2005, Mexico began imposing tariffs of 30% on dairy blends, 20% on 
wine, and 9% on chewing gum and candy manufactured in the U.S.
VII. Conclusion
    As detailed above, the CDSOA must be repealed. The World Trade 
Organization has ruled that it is illegal. By ignoring the WTO's 
ruling, the U.S. government is compromising the rule of law, as well as 
U.S. interests and American standing in global trade negotiations. Not 
only is the law illegal and unfair to both international and domestic 
companies, the law is economically unsound, resulting in immediate and 
significant damage to the world and U.S. economies. Its continued 
application is also exposing U.S. exporters to WTO-sanctioned 
retaliation by trading partners. For these reasons, the Schaeffler 
Group USA, Inc. urges that H.R. 1121 be included in the miscellaneous 
trade package, and that it be repealed immediately.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
                                                   Max F. Schutzman
                  Special Counsel to the Schaeffler Group USA, Inc.

                                 

                        Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc.
                                  Baldwinville, Massachusetts 01436
                                                    August 30, 2005

    I am writing on behalf of our 500 employees to voice strong 
opposition to HR 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill calling for the 
repeal of the continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).
    Seaman Paper Company is a family owned 57-year-old paper mill with 
local converting plants. Our products include tissue paper used to wrap 
customer purchases, packages of tissue paper sold for resale for at-
home gift wrapping, crepe streamers and other lightweight specialty 
tissue paper grades. We employ over 500 people in the Massachusetts 
towns of Otter River, Gardner and Orange. We are one of the largest 
employers in our area, which has a rich history of high-quality 
manufacturing.
    China started entering our markets about 7 years ago, and by 2003 
Chinese imports were 24 percent of the market and growing 
exponentially. Indeed, by mid 2004, our crepe streamer plant had lost 
over 75 percent of its business to Chinese imports.
    In February 2004 our domestic industry filed an antidumping lawsuit 
as a final, desperate measure to stop the flood of unfairly priced 
Chinese imports. In December 2004 the Department of Commerce imposed 
duties of 266 percent on all imports of Chinese crepe streamers and in 
February 2005 they imposed duties of 112 percent on all imports of 
Chinese tissue paper products. Despite this, the Chinese are currently 
attempting to circumvent the antidumping order by shipping product 
through Vietnam.
    The Chinese episode has hurt us in many ways. First, the 
artificially low Chinese prices have depressed prices in our markets 
and have forced us to reduce our profits or even sell products at a 
loss. Second, we have had to bear the substantial costs of bringing and 
defending the antidumping proceedings. Third, in the two year period 
that we were planning and awaiting the results of those proceedings, we 
could not justify or properly fund capital investments and so must now 
catch up for two lost years. Because of artificially low Chinese prices 
and the injury they have caused us, we have not been able to generate 
the internal funds to support these investments and so must look to 
outside sources. Finally, we have been burdened with ongoing legal 
expenses to support the antidumping duty orders and to address 
continuing circumvention issues. These expenses will be necessary until 
Congress and the Administration address problems with the enforcement 
of antidumping duty orders, the continuing Chinese currency 
manipulation, and subsidies which create such strong economic incentive 
to buy Chinese goods.
    Over the past five years, and notwithstanding the incredible 
pressure and injury caused by unfairly traded imports, we have worked 
to install state-of-the-art equipment to try to compete with Chinese 
exports. While we did not file our antidumping duty case in 
anticipation of receiving distributions under the Byrd Amendment--far 
from it--the availability of distributions would greatly assist us to 
make critical investments that we were unable to make while facing an 
onslaught of unfairly priced Chinese imports. We need to generate the 
capital to continue buying these converting lines, and the funds from 
CDSOA would be critical in achieving that goal.
    Thank you for considering our comments, and we would be pleased to 
answer any questions.
                                         George Davenport Jones III

                                 

Statement of Joseph Dwight Hikel, Shelter Systems Limited, Westminster, 
                                Maryland
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    My company produces structural building components--metal-plate 
connected wood trusses, wall panels and open-web floor joists--which 
are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel 
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes 
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress.
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                 

                                            Sioux Honey Association
                                             Sioux City, Iowa 51101
                                                    August 24, 2005
To: House Ways and Means Committee

    Our Company, Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, is an 
agricultural cooperative founded in 1921 by five beekeepers who lived 
near Sioux City,Iowa, by pooling together $200.00 and 3,000 pounds of 
honey as an experimental marketing project. The Association's corporate 
office is in Sioux City, Iowa with branch plants in Anaheim, California 
and Waycross, Georgia and employs 82 employees. The cooperative is 
owned and operated by its' 307 Member beekeepers from 24 States and 
this accounts for 20% of the domestic honey crop and 15% of the honey 
sold in the U.S.
    The 307 beekeepers that are Members of the Association are a 
critical resource to the nation's food industry. These Members are the 
largest organized group of beekeepers in the U.S. impacting 
agriculture. Honeybees do 80% of the pollinating for one-third of the 
human diet that is derived from insect-pollinated plants. Pollination 
by honeybees also affects over 100 crops nationwide with a combined 
annual value of $10 billion, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
    Sioux Honey Association strongly opposes H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (``MTB'') calling for the repeal of the 
CDSOA. The Association also strongly opposes H.R. 2473 (also contained 
in the MTB) which alters the calculations of the ``all others'' rate in 
AD/CVD cases, which would significantly reduce the amount of duties 
collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    CDSOA has worked well for U.S. companies and their workers. CDSOA 
simply transfers the Customs duty assessed on foreign competitors for 
violations of U.S. trade laws directly to the U.S. companies that face 
this unfair and persistent foreign competition. These funds are only 
for continued illegal acts no duties are accessed and available to 
injured parties unless a competitor continues to violate our laws. Our 
Members have benefited from CDSOA by being able to continue to invest 
in their facilities and workers, preserving U.S. jobs, and their family 
businesses.
    Our expectations are that Congress will actively support 
manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by opposing the repeal of the CDSOA and 
by supporting the U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes 
as determined by Congress by fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in 
the World Trade Organization. Congress has called for our trade 
negotiators in the ongoing Doha Round to push for revision of the WTO 
agreements so that CDSOA and similar programs relating to individual 
countries' use of the AD/CVD duties they collect will be expressly 
accepted as WTO consistent. This is the way to resolve the WTO dispute 
that is the basis for calls to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
                                                     David Allibone
                                                     President, CEO

                                 

          Statement of Deborah Long, Southern Shrimp Alliance
    This statement reflects the views of the Southern Shrimp Alliance 
(``SSA''), a non-profit alliance of shrimp fishermen and processors in 
eight states committed to preventing the continued deterioration of 
America's domestic shrimp industry and to ensuring the industry's 
future viability. SSA serves as the national voice for members of the 
shrimp industry in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. We appreciate the 
opportunity to submit this statement in anticipation of the 
Subcommittee's review of the proposed technical corrections to U.S. 
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.
    The SSA opposes the inclusion of H.R. 1121--a bill to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'')--in the technical 
corrections and duty suspension bill package.
    The once-vibrant U.S. shrimp industry has been crippled by unfair 
trade by foreign exporters of shrimp. Wholesale prices for American 
shrimp have plummeted as the amount of unfairly traded imports has 
increased dramatically. The Department of Commerce and the 
International Trade Commission, in their roles of enforcing the U.S. 
trade laws, have recognized that such shrimp imports are being dumped 
in the U.S. market causing injury to the domestic shrimp industry. For 
example, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') and the Commerce 
Department have imposed antidumping duties as high as 112% on certain 
shrimp imports from China. No American industry can be expected to 
compete with such flagrant violations of the trade laws.
    Despite the relief provided, many in the industry, teetering on 
bankruptcy, are being forced to consider closing their family 
businesses and laying-off employees. Between 2000 and the first half of 
2004, the time of the injury determination, imports from the major 
shrimp exporting nations surged 71% as prices paid for shrimp plummeted 
39%. If the shrimping industry cannot withstand the economic pressures 
caused by foreign unfair trade, hundreds of communities will be left 
without their traditional economic base. In fact, some have already 
succumbed to the economic hardship and closed their doors.
    An essential element of the relief provided to this devastated 
industry is available under CDSOA. CDSOA provides that the duties 
collected may be distributed to the domestic producers who have been 
injured by the continued violation of U.S. trade laws. Distributions 
are made to those producers who continue to invest in their industry 
for specified qualifying expenditures such as acquisition of technology 
and environmental equipment, and then only up to the amount of those 
investments. These distributions help offset the harm caused by the 
unfair trade and encourage domestic industries to continue to make the 
investments necessary to recover from such injury. CDSOA only applies 
when foreign producers continue to violate U.S. trade laws after there 
have been findings against them by both the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and the U.S. International Trade Commission. If the exporters stop 
dumping, funds will no longer be available for distribution under 
CDSOA.
    Funds could be distributed pursuant to CDSOA to a shrimp fisherman 
who paid to replace engines or buy new nets. Funds could be distributed 
to a shrimp processor who paid to replace and upgrade essential 
sorting, peeling, and other processing machinery. This reinvestment 
will help ensure the survival of the American shrimp industry, the 
preservation of thousand of jobs and the vibrancy of many coastal 
communities.
    American shrimp fishermen and processors are suffering as a result 
of unfair imports of foreign shrimp. CDSOA is a vital component of the 
U.S. trade law regime Congress has designed to level the playing field 
for U.S. industry. It should not be repealed in the technical 
corrections and duty suspension bill package or, indeed, in any other 
legislation approved by Congress.

                                 
   Statement of Jack W. Shilling, Specialty Steel Industry of North 
                                America
    The Specialty Steel Industry of North America (``SSINA''), a trade 
association whose membership includes fifteen U.S. companies engaged in 
the manufacture and distribution of specialty metals--including 
stainless steels, superalloys and other nickel alloys, and a variety of 
other sophisticated, high-value alloys--submits these comments in 
strong opposition to H.R. 1121, a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``the Byrd Amendment''). 
H.R. 1121 is designed to bring U.S. law into conformity with the 
January 16, 2003 decision of the WTO Appellate Body finding the CDSOA 
to be a nonpermissible ``specific action against'' dumping or 
subsidization. As discussed below, SSINA believes that the Appellate 
Body's decision is erroneous, and points up the need for fundamental 
changes in the WTO Antidumping and SCM Agreements. Congress and the 
Administration should not be considering repeal of the CDSOA--even in 
the face of retaliation by the European Union, Japan, and the other 
complainants in the WTO case--but should instead be pressing for 
negotiations in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations aimed 
at achieving recognition that the CDSOA and similar fiscal legislation 
fall outside the proper scope of WTO jurisdiction.
    Several of SSINA's members are among the companies whose exports 
will be affected by Japan's recent announcement that it will impose 15 
percent retaliatory duties on certain U.S. products, including several 
types of specialty steel, effective on September 1, 2005. On the other 
hand, SSINA members have also been among the largest beneficiaries of 
the Byrd Amendment since its passage in 2000. While we obviously do not 
take the potential loss of our export markets lightly, there is no 
question that our companies and the United States as a whole will be 
better off suffering the loss of some export sales if it means 
preserving the effectiveness of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing 
duty laws. And in our estimation, continuation of the Byrd Amendment in 
its current form is essential to preserving the remedial effect of 
these critical trade laws.
    In its January 16, 2003 decision, the WTO Appellate Body found that 
the CDSOA was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Articles 18.1 
and 32.1 of the Antidumping and SCM Agreements, respectively. 
Specifically, the Appellate Body found that Articles 18.1 and 32.1 
permit only four types of ``specific action against'' dumping or 
subsidization: (1) duties, (2) provisional measures, (3) price 
undertakings, and, in the case of subsidies, (4) countermeasures. The 
Appellate Body concluded that CDSOA distributions to domestic producers 
are ``specific action against'' dumping or subsidization because: (1) 
they are implicitly linked to antidumping or countervailing duty 
determinations because they can be made only following those 
determinations, and (2) the program is designed or structured to 
discourage the practice of dumping or subsidization by transferring 
antidumping and countervailing duties collected on imports to domestic 
competitors. Because CDSOA distributions are not among the four types 
of ``specific action'' permitted by the agreements, the Appellate Body 
found that the CDSOA is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under 
Articles 18.1 and 32.1.
    The Appellate Body's ruling is erroneous in a number of respects. 
Most importantly, it represents yet another example of the WTO creating 
and imposing new obligations on its members that were never agreed to 
in the organic agreements. Nothing in the Antidumping and SCM 
Agreements speaks to how WTO members may use antidumping and 
countervailing duties once they have been paid. Nor is there logic in 
the Appellate Body's finding that a payment program becomes ``specific 
action against dumping or subsidization'' simply because the funding 
mechanism for the payments is moneys lawfully collected by the United 
States from trade cases. While the Appellate Body appeared to suggest 
that the CDSOA is a subsidy of some sort, the WTO Panel expressly found 
that the transfer of duties to affected domestic producers was not a 
prohibited or actionable subsidy under the SCM Agreement. The United 
States and all countries retain the sovereign right to spend money as 
they choose where such payments are not actionable subsidies under the 
SCM Agreement.
    Something is dreadfully wrong with the WTO when its Appellate Body 
can read its Antidumping and SCM Agreements as giving protected status 
to ongoing dumping and subsidization--the very unfair trade practices 
prohibited by both those agreements and the predecessor GATT codes--
while finding violative of those agreements an internal fiscal measure 
that is concededly not an actionable subsidy. Moreover, for all the 
criticism it has received, it should be borne in mind that the CDSOA 
is, after all, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, and only 
operates to refund duties to affected domestic producers to the extent 
that dumping and subsidization continue after issuance of an 
antidumping or countervailing duty order. If foreign producers react to 
the issuance of the order by ceasing dumping or renouncing subsidies, 
U.S. affected domestic producers get nothing. The statute does not 
impose sanctions against dumping or subsidization any greater than 
those permitted under the Antidumping and SCM Agreements; the Byrd 
Amendment did not raise the amount of antidumping and countervailing 
duties permissible under U.S. law and the Antidumping and SCM 
Agreements. It simply applies the duties collected in a manner designed 
to remedy the ongoing injury caused by the continuation of unfair trade 
practices. Nothing in the WTO agreements prohibits the United States or 
any other country from taking action to respond to injury (or the 
effects of dumping or subsidization), as distinct from actions 
responding to the unfair trade practices themselves.
    Because of these fundamental defects in the Appellate Body's 
decision, it is more than understandable that Congress did not move to 
amend or repeal the Byrd Amendment by the December 27, 2003 deadline 
originally established for compliance. In the Trade Act of 2002, 
Congress directed the Administration to start a process in the Doha 
Round of negotiations to address the problem of ``overreaching'' by WTO 
Panels and the Appellate Body, particularly in the antidumping and 
countervailing duty area. The Appellate Body decision finding the CDSOA 
to be in violation of commitments nowhere expressly contained in the 
Antidumping and SCM Agreements is only the latest example of such 
overreaching. Rather than capitulate to this illegitimate attempt to 
limit U.S. sovereignty, the United States should press for negotiations 
during the Doha talks specifically aimed at amending the relevant 
agreements to make clear that the Byrd Amendment and similar internal 
fiscal measures are not prohibited ``specific actions against'' dumping 
and subsidization. As exporters themselves, SSINA's members do not fear 
the adoption by other countries of internal legislation modeled on the 
CDSOA. To the contrary, SSINA believes that this would be a positive 
development that would improve the effectiveness throughout the world 
of long-accepted disciplines aimed at discouraging dumping and 
subsidization of exports. The United States and the world trading 
system would only be better for it.
    For these reasons, SSINA respectfully urges the Committee to report 
H.R. 1121 unfavorably.

                                 
                                                Stewart and Stewart
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The following comments are submitted in response to Advisory No. 
TR-3, dated July 29, 2005, in which the Subcommittee on Trade requested 
``written comments for the record from all parties interested in 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals,'' and ``public comment on those bills listed'' in 
the advisory.
    Two of the bills listed in the advisory are of particular concern: 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.'' These bills are 
unsuitable for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill. As explained 
further below, each bill attempts to implement controversial adverse 
WTO decisions, each would weaken U.S. trade remedy laws, and each would 
attract significant controversy. In addition, H.R. 2473 would likely 
not be administrable by the Commerce Department. Hence, H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473 do not meet the criteria for bills that have historically 
been part of the non-controversial miscellaneous trade package.
Controversial Adverse WTO Decisions That Have Been Criticized by 
        Congress and the Administration Should Not Be Implemented Using 
        the Miscellaneous Trade Bill
    It is evident that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 seek to implement 
decisions of World Trade Organization (``WTO'') panels and the 
Appellate Body in disputes that were decided adversely to the interests 
of the United States.\1\ However, the miscellaneous trade bill should 
not be used to amend major U.S. trade laws to implement controversial 
WTO panel or Appellate Body reports. This is at odds with the stated 
and historical purpose of such non-controversial legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Specifically, United States--Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2002, DS217, DS234 (adopted on January 27, 2003), and 
United States--Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan, DS184 (adopted on August 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress noted its growing 
apprehension about WTO dispute settlement proceedings:

    (A)  the recent pattern of decisions by dispute settlement panels 
of the WTO and the Appellate Body to impose obligations and 
restrictions on the use of antidumping, countervailing, and safeguard 
measures by WTO members under the Antidumping Agreement, the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the Agreement on 
Safeguards has raised concern; and
    (B)  the Congress is concerned that dispute settlement panels of 
the WTO and the Appellate Body appropriately apply the standard of 
review contained in Article 17.6 of the Antidumping Agreement, to 
provide deference to a permissible interpretation by a WTO member of 
provisions of that Agreement, and to the evaluation by a WTO member of 
the facts where that evaluation is unbiased and objective and the 
establishment of the facts is proper.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 19 U.S.C. Sec. 3801(b)(3).

    In light of its misgivings, Congress called on the Administration 
to prepare a ``report setting forth the strategy of the executive 
branch to address concerns of the Congress regarding whether dispute 
settlement panels and the Appellate Body of the WTO have added to 
obligations, or diminished rights, of the United States.'' \3\ In the 
report it transmitted to Congress, the Administration was likewise 
critical of WTO dispute settlement, stating that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 19 U.S.C. Sec. 3805(b)(3).

       the United States does not agree with the approach that WTO 
panels and the Appellate Body have sometimes taken in disputes, and is 
concerned about the potential systemic implications. In particular, the 
executive branch views with

       concern the manner in which WTO panels and the Appellate Body 
have applied the applicable standard of review in disputes involving 
U.S. trade remedy and safeguard matters, and instances in which they 
have found obligations and restrictions on WTO Members concerning trade 
remedies and safeguards that are not supported by the texts of the WTO 
agreements. . . .\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Executive Branch Strategy Regarding WTO Dispute Settlement 
Panels and the Appellate Body--Report to the Congress Transmitted by 
the Secretary of Commerce, at 7 (Dec. 31, 2001).

    The Administration has identified the disputes concerning the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'') and the 
``all-others'' rate, among others, as particular instances wherein 
obligations that have no textual basis in the WTO Agreements were 
created and imposed on the United States by WTO panels and the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate Body. About CDSOA, the Administration has stated that:

       The Appellate Body . . . created a new category of prohibited 
subsidies that ha[s] neither been negotiated nor agreed to by WTO 
Members.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, Held in the Centre 
William Rappard on 27 January 2003, WT/DSB/M/142, at para. 55 (March 6, 
2003).

    With respect to the ``all-others'' rate decision in the Hot-Rolled 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel dispute, the Administration has pointed out that:

       the Anti-Dumping Agreement [does] not explicitly require that 
margins containing any amount of ``facts available'' be excluded from 
the ``all others'' calculation: it [is] silent as to the amount of 
``facts available'' that trigger[] exclusion. Given that the Anti-
Dumping Agreement [is] ambiguous on the degree of ``facts available'' 
which require[] exclusion, Article 17.6 required that permissible 
interpretations such as that of the United States be accepted. Further, 
the Appellate Body--resolved the ambiguity in a way that did not foster 
predictability in the calculation of the ``all others'' rate and that 
did not fully take into account the practical side of calculating an 
``all others'' rate.\6\ \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, Held in the Centre 
William Rappard on 23 August 2001, WT/DSB/M/108, at para. 73 (October 
2, 2001).
    \7\ The Senate Report on the Trade Act of 2002 also specifically 
identified the Hot-Rolled Steel dispute as being among the disputes in 
the ``recent pattern'' about which Congress was concerned. S. Rep. 107-
139, at 54 (2002).

    The miscellaneous trade bill should not be used to implement these 
or any other instances of overreaching by WTO panels and the Appellate 
Body.
    In fact, implementation of these decisions through the enactment of 
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 would contravene previous expressions of 
Congressional intent. The Trade Act of 2002 called for a 
``comprehensive strategy for correcting instances in which dispute 
settlement panels and the Appellate Body have added to obligations or 
diminished rights of the United States.'' \8\ Even more explicitly, 
with respect to CDSOA, in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2004 
and 2005, Congress directed ``[t]hat negotiations shall be conducted 
within the World Trade Organization to recognize the right of members 
to distribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing 
duties.'' \9\ The negotiations called for by Congress are ongoing in 
the context of the WTO Doha Round on both of these issues. Those 
negotiations should be allowed to run their course to see if the 
problems created by panel and Appellate Body overreaching can be 
corrected. Enactment of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 would undercut the 
possibility of the negotiated resolution envisioned by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ S. Rep. 107-139, at 55 (2002).
    \9\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, P.L. 108-199 (Jan. 23, 
2004); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447 (Dec. 8, 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Miscellaneous Trade Bill Should Not Weaken U.S. Trade Remedy Laws
    There has been broad, consistent, and longstanding support for the 
trade remedy laws in Congress. Strong and effective trade remedy laws 
are key to ensuring a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers, 
farmers, ranchers, and workers, and for maintaining public support for 
further trade liberalization. Consistent with these principles, 
Congress declared in the Trade Act of 2002 that:
    The principal negotiating objectives of the United States with 
respect to trade remedy laws are--

    (A)  to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce 
rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, countervailing 
duty, and safeguard laws, and avoid agreements that lessen the 
effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair 
trade, especially dumping and subsidies, or that lessen the 
effectiveness of domestic and international safeguard provisions, in 
order to ensure that United States workers, agricultural producers, and 
firms can compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of 
reciprocal trade concessions; and
    (B)  to address and remedy market distortions that lead to dumping 
and subsidization, including overcapacity, cartelization, and market-
access barriers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 19 U.S.C. Sec. 3802(14).

    In addition, the Conference Report accompanying the Trade Act of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 recognized:

       the importance of preserving the ability of the United States to 
enforce rigorously its trade remedy laws, including the antidumping, 
countervailing duty and safeguard laws. Because this issue is 
significant to many Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, 
the Conferees have made this priority a principal negotiating 
objective. Negotiators must also avoid agreements that lessen the 
effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair 
trade, as well as domestic and international safeguard provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ H.R. Rep. 107-624, at 156 (2002).

    The Senate Report likewise noted that ``[p]reserving the ability to 
respond promptly and effectively to unfair trade practices and to 
harmful import surges is critical to maintaining support in the United 
States for an open, rules-based trading system.'' \12\ In light of 
these unambiguous expressions of support for strong trade remedy laws, 
any bill that would weaken those laws can be expected to attract 
significant controversy and substantial opposition. The miscellaneous 
trade bill, which has historically been non-controversial legislation, 
should not incorporate any bills that would have the effect of 
weakening U.S. trade remedy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ S. Rep. 107-139, at 54 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1121 Would Weaken U.S. Trade Remedy Laws and Should Not be Part of 
        the Miscellaneous Trade Bill
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal CDSOA. However, there is wide bi-
partisan support among Members of Congress and the public for 
CDSOA.\13\ Any legislation to repeal it would attract substantial 
controversy and strong opposition. Moreover, CDSOA is an effective 
program and its repeal would weaken the trade remedy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ For example, in 2003, following an adverse WTO decision on 
CDSOA, 70 Senators signed a letter to the President supporting the law. 
That letter expressed their concern that the Appellate Body had 
overreached by imposing new obligations on the United States, and it 
urged the President to seek express recognition of the right of WTO 
Members to maintain programs like CDSOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDSOA distributes funds to certain domestic parties when industries 
have been found to be injured by dumped and subsidized imports. The 
funding for CDSOA comes from duties collected on dumped and subsidized 
imports where dumping and subsidization continue after AD/CVD measures 
have been put into place. Where dumping or subsidization ceases as 
intended, no funds are available to distribute. CDSOA has a wide range 
of beneficiaries, including companies, farmers, ranchers, and unions, 
who are eligible to receive distributions for qualifying expenditures 
on manufacturing facilities; equipment; research and development; 
personnel training; acquisition of technology; health care benefits; 
pension benefits; environmental equipment, training, and technology; 
acquisition of raw materials and other inputs; and working capital or 
other funds needed to maintain production.
    CDSOA does not alter the methodology used by the Commerce 
Department to calculate dumping/subsidy margins, and CDSOA has no 
effect on how much duty must be paid on dumped and subsidized imports. 
CDSOA merely distributes funds pursuant to generally applicable 
criteria when unfair trade practices do not cease. Additionally, 
despite concern raised in the press and elsewhere, CDSOA has not 
created an incentive for U.S. producers to file new antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases. In fact, as the House Committee on 
Appropriations recently noted, the number of antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations conducted by Commerce has 
``decreased significantly'' in recent years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-118, at 75 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDSOA is an effective program that enjoys broad support, and 
repealing CDSOA would weaken the trade remedy laws. H.R. 1121 is thus 
likely to attract significant controversy and should not be included as 
part of the miscellaneous trade bill.
H.R. 2473 Would Weaken U.S. Trade Remedy Laws and Would Not Be 
        Administrable, So it Should Not be Part of the Miscellaneous 
        Trade Bill
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law by deleting the 
word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930.\15\ This modification would, in many cases, 
effectively make it impossible for Commerce to calculate an ``all-
others'' dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673d(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``all-others'' dumping margin is the rate applied to imports 
from all non-investigated exporters. It is a weighted average of 
dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. In 
calculating dumping margins for individually investigated exporters, 
Commerce may use ``facts available'' as a substitute for certain 
company-specific data when a respondent company fails to supply all the 
data necessary to perform the calculation. Those dumping margins based 
only partially on facts available are included in the weighted average 
calculated for the ``all-others'' rate. Where a dumping margin 
calculated for an individually investigated exporter is based entirely 
on ``facts available,'' however, that specific margin is currently 
excluded from the weighted average used for the ``all-others'' rate. 
The inclusion of dumping margins partially based on ``facts available'' 
in the calculation of the ``all-others'' rate is necessary, as many 
dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at lease some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating the ``all-
others'' rate using any dumping margins based on any amount of ``facts 
available'' information. Thus, in many cases, it would be impossible 
for Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' rate, because it would have 
no usable margins with which to calculate a weighted average. H.R. 2473 
would create serious administrative difficulties for Commerce because 
it provides no alternative means of calculating an ``all-others'' rate 
in such cases. Consequently, H.R. 2473 would substantially weaken the 
antidumping law, it is likely to attract significant controversy, and 
it would not be administrable. H.R. 2473 is therefore not appropriate 
for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Should Not be Included in the Miscellaneous 
Trade Bill
    For the reasons detailed above, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both 
likely to attract significant controversy and strong opposition. In 
addition, it is unlikely that H.R. 2473 would be administrable by the 
Commerce Department. Consequently, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 do not meet 
the established criteria for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill. 
The Subcommittee should exclude H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from 
consideration as part of the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Thank you for taking these comments into account as you debate 
these important matters.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                 Terence P. Stewart

                                 

 Statement of Christopher Paulhus, Stock Building Supply, Dayton, Ohio
    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. I am writing in 
support of H.R. 1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    My company produces structural building components--metal-plate 
connected wood trusses, wall panels and open-web floor joists--which 
are made primarily of softwood lumber and light gauge, galvanized steel 
connector plates. Our products are used mainly in residential homes 
across the country, as well as multi-family dwellings and light-
commercial and agricultural buildings.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on our 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, my company's competitiveness and profitability are directly 
harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and exacerbated 
through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the following 
observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments on H.R. 1121, 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need for 
further information.

                                 

                                              Sunny Dell Foods, Inc
                                 Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable William Thomas
Chairman
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Thomas:

    I am writing on behalf of my company and its 100 employees to 
register our strong opposition to HR 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill, calling for the repeal of the continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).
    Sunny Dell Foods Inc. is a family owned and operated company 
located in south-central Pennsylvania. We process mushrooms and 
numerous other vegetable products into a wide variety of value-added 
products. When we first opened our doors we processed only mushrooms. 
After experiencing first-hand the devastating effects of unfairly 
traded imports--from Chile, China, India and Indonesia--in 1998 we 
joined with other members of the domestic industry and invested 
considerable time and money into bringing and winning four separate 
antidumping duty cases. We brought those cases, years before the CDSOA 
was passed, because the relief offered by the trade laws was the last 
chance we had to defend our industry and preserve our company, our 
livelihood, and our employees' jobs.
    Since winning those cases, we have invested more time and money in 
defending those orders against numerous instances of circumvention. 
Through all of this, we have worked to maintain and invest in our 
business. The continued dumping of imports from all four countries has 
made it difficult to invest properly to ensure the health and future of 
my company.
    We have been fortunate to be eligible to receive CDSOA 
distributions in every year since the law went into effect. The amounts 
that we have received under the CDSOA have been critical in helping us 
to make fundamental investments that we would not otherwise have been 
able to make. Each year we reinvest in new and existing equipment to 
expand our operations and to maximize our efficiency and 
competitiveness. Among other things, we have invested significantly in 
building a completely new waste water treatment plant. This investment 
would have been impossible without the distributions we received, and 
without the treatment facility, we would have been unable to maintain 
production.
    The current challenges to the CDSOA seek to paint this program as a 
source of improper largess, and to describe its beneficiaries as 
inefficient and slow to adapt to the demands of the modern market. We 
respectfully submit that this is not correct. Our company strives every 
day to be as efficient and entrepreneurial as any. Our ability to 
invest in ourselves to achieve these goals, however, has been seriously 
hampered by continued dumping. The availability of distributions under 
the CDSOA is a direct result of the unfair trade practices we confront 
every day. It allows us to maintain and maximize our ability to compete 
and adapt to our markets, and it should not be repealed.
    Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact 
us directly if you have any questions concerning this letter.
            Sincerely yours,
                                                  Gary F. Caligiuri
                                                          President

                                 

                                               Superbag Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77041
                                                    August 15, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1121 (CDSOA)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on 
behalf of Superbag Corp. and its 250 employees to express our strong 
opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical Corrections 
to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 
would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). 
The bill is highly controversial. It cannot be fairly described as a 
``technical correction'' to existing law.
    Superbag Corp., headquartered in Houston Texas, is a U.S. producer 
of t-shirt style polyethylene retail carrier bags. We operate a three-
module plant located under one roof in Houston, which is dedicated to 
the sole production of these plastic t-shirt bags.
    Last year, our industry won antidumping cases against polyethylene 
retail carrier bags (``PRCBs'') from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 
With the antidumping orders now in place, we are concerned that some 
exporters are continuing to dump, absorbing the antidumping duties, and 
refusing to raise prices to non-injurious levels. CDSOA both 
discourages continued dumping and also compensates the victims of such 
continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that antidumping 
duties are distributed to the supporters of the original antidumping 
petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA distributions. 
Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    Contrary to false claims of some consumers of unfairly priced 
imports, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000. Our industry filed our antidumping 
petitions because we were being injured by unfairly priced imports, not 
because of CDSOA.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a United States proposal to change the WTO 
Antidumping Agreement to clarify that that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, Congress 
should continue to urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this 
controversial issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Isaac Bazbaz
                                                           Director

                                 

                                             Tampa Maid Foods, Inc.
                                            Lakeland, Florida 33802
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    As a major seafood importer and processor, and member of the 
American Seafood Distribution Association (ASDA), I would like to thank 
you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal 
the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly 
known as the Byrd Amendment. Our organization strongly supports this 
legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    We at Tampa Maid are convinced that the group of domestic seafood 
harvesters who filed an anti-dumping petition against imported shrimp 
with the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade 
Commission was primarily motivated by the prospect of receiving Byrd 
money. Instead of adapting their business strategy to keep pace with 
global competitors, as the ASDA has encouraged the domestic industry to 
do for years, we strongly believe the petition was filed in order to 
pave the way for receiving millions of dollars in special interest 
payments through the Byrd Amendment. The Byrd Amendment is a corrupting 
influence on the antidumping petition process and it conflicts with the 
underlying premise of an import tariff, which is to level the playing 
field.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on shrimp 
imports, Tampa Maid not only must pay the duties but also see the 
monies in the future transferred to the domestic industry as a reward 
for filing their lawsuit. Meanwhile, we have had to reduce our Florida 
workforce by 13% and expect another 15% as we continue to move the 
value-added breading of shrimp off-shore. The Byrd Amendment which 
motivated the shrimp tariff is costing American jobs.
    Bottom line, the Byrd Amendment is simply bad domestic policy. As a 
perfect example, the members of the domestic shrimp harvesting industry 
who filed the trade petition will not be required to use Byrd monies 
they receive to take steps necessary to modernize or improve their 
competitiveness. Instead, they can count on receiving a government 
handout for every tariffed shrimp imported into this country.
    In closing, the Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by 
the appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury 
to American companies. We request that you include H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous trade bill. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on 
this important issue.
                                                    Edward B. Smith
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                   Texas Industries
                                                Dallas, Texas 75247
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Texas Industries and its 2850 employees to express 
our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no 
means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to existing 
law.
    Texas Industries is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and operates 
two cement plants in Texas and two cement plants in California with an 
annual production capacity of 5.0 million tons. We also operate 58 
ready-mix plants and 19 aggregate plants in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma 
and Arkansas with annual production of 4.0 million yards and 25 million 
tons, respectively.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Mel G. Brekhus
                                                    President & CEO

                                 

                                           The Bombay Company, Inc.
                                            Fort Worth, Texas 76107
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of The Bombay Company, Inc. (Bombay), I would like to 
thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to 
repeal the ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), 
commonly known as the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports 
this legislation's inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Headquartered in Fort Worth, TX, Bombay has 5,000 employees with 
2005 sales at $576.1 million. Since our inception in 1978, The Bombay 
Company has grown to approximately 500 stores, in malls and shopping 
centers throughout the U.S. and Canada, offering classic and 
traditional furniture, wall decor, and accessories for the bedroom, 
dining room, home office, and living room. Bombay's products also 
include baskets, candles, home fragrances, crystal, and soft goods. It 
operates outlet stores, BombayKIDS locations, and sells items through 
catalogs and on the Internet.
    In 2003 a group of domestic furniture manufacturers worked to 
restrict consumer access to affordable high quality wooden bedroom 
furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition against furniture from 
China with the Commerce Department and the International Trade 
Commission. We believe that these petitioners were primarily motivated 
by the prospects of Byrd Amendment funds.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden 
bedroom furniture, Bombay not only must pay the duties but also see the 
monies in the future transferred to selected domestic manufacturers 
that we compete directly against! Dumping duties by their nature are 
supposed to increase the costs of goods, thereby making ``unfair'' 
imports ``fair.'' Transferring the duties back to the U.S. producers 
causes a double benefit to those companies who filed the petition. Not 
only do they raise the price of goods to U.S. consumers, but the U.S. 
producers then collect huge payments from the government, with no 
requirements that they do anything with this money.
    The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than 
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to nine companies, and 
about 80 percent to only 44 companies nationwide.
    Again, the furniture manufacturers who filed the trade petition 
will not be required to use the Byrd money they receive for job 
retraining or to improve their competitiveness. Instead, these 
companies can sit back and receive a government handout on every wood 
bedroom product imported into this country from China, and it goes 
right into their bottom-line. Bombay's millions of customers across 
America depend on having access to quality furniture for their homes at 
a reasonable price. We ask that the Trade Subcommittee consider the 
needs of retailers who import products, our employees, and our 
customers. The Byrd Amendment was passed without consideration by the 
appropriate committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to 
American companies.
    As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R. 
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill and once again applaud you for 
your leadership on this important issue.
                                            Michael J. Veitenheimer
                                 Vice President and General Counsel

                                 

        Statement of Scott Riehl, The Food Products Association
    This testimony is submitted on behalf of the member companies of 
the Food Products Association (``FPA'') in support of H.R. 1121, a bill 
that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''). FPA is the largest U.S. trade association serving the food 
and beverage industry. The membership of FPA includes over 300 
companies responsible for the production of a substantial portion of 
the food and beverages sold in this country. FPA members are also 
significant exporters of these products to markets throughout the 
world.
    Eight countries, representing 71 % of total U.S. exports, have been 
authorized by the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') to impose duties 
on U.S. exports as a result of the failure of the U.S. to repeal the 
Continuing Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). The CDSOA 
authorizes the payment of antidumping and countervailing duties to 
companies initiating such trade remedy cases. The WTO has determined 
that the Act violates the WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements. 
Canada, the European Union, Japan, and Mexico have already imposed 
duties that will reduce exports of food and beverages, along with 
exports of many other products, by over $110 million in 2005 alone. As 
payments under CDSOA increase over the next few years, the level and 
scope of retaliatory duties imposed by these major trading countries 
will also increase significantly. The Administration strongly urges the 
repeal of the CDSOA. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office 
(``CBO'') has determined that the Act has caused significant harm to 
U.S. producers, consumers, and exporters. Repeal of the CDSOA is the 
only effective way to eliminate the growing adverse impact of the 
statute on the U.S. economy. On the other hand, the efforts of 
companies currently receiving payments to preserve the Act and to 
negotiate amendments permitting such payments in the ongoing Doha Round 
of multilateral trade negotiations would only lead to the adoption of 
similar laws in other countries with serious adverse consequences for 
U.S. exporters.
    As indicated, the WTO has ruled that the CDSOA violates the WTO 
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (the ``Antidumping Agreement'') and the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM or ``Subsidies 
Agreement''). Subsequent to the ruling, a WTO arbitrator gave the U.S. 
until December 27, 2003, to come into compliance with the ruling. Since 
this country did not comply with the ruling, the WTO, on November 26, 
2004, authorized the eight countries that had participated in the 
proceeding against the CDSOA to impose retaliatory duties on exports 
from the U.S. to their territories.
    The countries authorized to retaliate against U.S. exports are 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Union (the ``EU''), India, Japan, 
Korea, and Mexico. These countries account for 71% of total U.S. 
exports. Of these, four have already begun to impose duties on selected 
exports from the U.S. The range of products already subject to duties 
includes many sectors, including food and beverage.

      Canada has been authorized by the WTO to impose duties 
sufficient to reduce U.S. exports to Canada by $14 million in 2005. 
Accordingly,

    Canada has imposed 15% duties on live swine, frozen fish, and 
oysters. Canada has already published a list of additional industrial 
and agricultural products upon which it will impose duties if the CDSOA 
is not repealed.

      The EU has been authorized to impose duties that would 
reduce U.S. exports by $28 million in 2005. The EU has imposed 15% 
duties on imports of a number of industrial, paper, and apparel 
products, as well as sweet corn from the U.S. A large ``reserve list'' 
of additional products that are subject to possible retaliatory duties 
in future years has also been published.
      Mexico has been authorized by the WTO to impose duties 
that would reduce U.S. exports by $20.9 million in 2005. Effective 
August 18, 2005, Mexico imposed a 30% duty on imports from the U.S. of 
skim milk powder dairy blends, a 20% duty on wine, and a 9% duty on 
chewing gum and candy.
      Japan has been authorized to impose retaliatory duties 
sufficient to reduce U.S. exports by $52 million. Although Japan has 
not yet retaliated against U.S. food or beverage products, it has 
imposed 15% duties on various steel products and industrial equipment 
from the U.S.
      The remaining countries that are entitled to impose 
sanctions on U.S. exports, Brazil, Chile, India, and Korea, have been 
authorized to impose sanctions that would reduce U.S. exports by 72% of 
the annual level of antidumping and countervailing duties collected on 
their exports to the U.S.

    It should be assumed that, should the U.S. continue in its failure 
to repeal the CDSOA, most of the remaining four countries would also 
impose duties on U.S. products. More significantly, the level of duties 
and the scope of products subject to retaliatory duties will almost 
certainly increase so long as the CDSOA remains in effect.
    Under the rules of the WTO, countries are permitted to impose 
sanctions to affect a value of trade equivalent to the value of trade 
of the complaining countries adversely affected by the policies of the 
country in violation of the WTO agreements. In the case of the CDSOA, 
the value is
    determined by the amount of money paid out to U.S. producers under 
the legislation. The payments for the period 2001 through 2004 have 
averaged in excess of $250 million. However, if the CDSOA is not 
repealed, the payments to U.S. producers could increase to over $1 
billion annually in 2007,
    in large part due to payment of over $ 4 billion in duties that the 
U.S. has already collected on imports of softwood lumber from Canada. 
The level and scope of retaliatory duties on U.S. exports will increase 
in direct proportion to the value of payments made to U.S. producers 
under CDSOA.
    Beyond the obvious adverse impact of the CDSOA on U.S. exports, the 
failure to repeal this legislation has resulted in a significant 
adverse impact on the U.S. economy as a whole. The U.S. has maintained 
a policy of compliance with WTO dispute settlement determinations 
because, on balance, these determinations have been favorable to this 
country. Since the U.S. maintains an open trade market, in general 
compliance with WTO agreements, it stands to benefit from WTO 
determinations that have led to the elimination of non-WTO-compatible 
barriers to U.S. exports imposed by our trading partners.
    Recognizing that it is in the general interest of the U.S. to 
comply with WTO decisions, the Administration has strongly supported 
the repeal of the statute. The Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'') 
has also determined that the repeal of CDSOA would be in the best 
economic interest of the U.S. Based upon a request made last year by 
the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, CBO undertook a study on 
how the CDSOA ``benefits, harms, or distorts economic activity.'' On 
March 2, 2004, CBO responded to the inquiry with a report that clearly 
stated that the legislation was, on balance, harmful to the U.S. 
economy. In its cover letter to the Chairman, the Director stated:
    Although it is not possible to provide a precise estimate of the 
effects of antidumping and countervailing duties on the economy, it is 
generally acknowledged that whatever gains might occur in terms of 
perception of the fairness of trade come at a cost in terms of lower 
output for the economy as a whole and lower economic well-being of the 
citizenry. Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 increases 
that cost by providing incentives for more U.S. businesses to pursue 
more antidumping and subsidy complaints.
    The law subsidizes the output of some firms at the expense of 
others, leading to inefficient use of capital, labor, and other 
resources of the economy. It discourages settlement of cases by U.S. 
firms and will lead to increased expenditure of economic resources on 
administration, legal representation of parties, and various other 
costs associated with the operation of the antidumping and 
countervailing-duty laws. To the extent that other countries adopt 
comparable policies, the law may lead to further interference in the 
ability of U.S. exporters to compete in the global trading system. 
Finally, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body has ruled 
that the act violates the WTO agreement, leaving the United States 
vulnerable to retaliation against its exports, although the amount of 
that retaliation has not yet been determined.
    In closing, I would like to comment on a proposal being advocated 
by certain parties who oppose the repeal of the CDSOA. Basically these 
parties argue that, rather than repealing the Act, the consistency of 
the CDSOA with the WTO should be ``clarified'' in the Doha Round of 
multilateral negotiations currently underway in Geneva. While there 
have been issues arising out of dispute settlement proceedings that 
were appropriate for resolution through multilateral negotiation in the 
WTO, this is not one of them. In the first place, it will be years 
before the Doha Round of negotiations is concluded, if indeed it is 
ever successfully completed. In the meantime, retaliation against U.S. 
exports will continue to increase in level and scope. Furthermore, 
anyone reasonably familiar with the negotiation of the Antidumping and 
Subsidies Agreements in the WTO is aware that a major U.S. effort will 
be required in the Doha Round just to preserve the current level of 
protection. There is very little possibility that this country would be 
able to convince its trading partners that the WTO should be 
``clarified'' to permit the adoption of legislation permitting payments 
of antidumping and countervailing duties to producers initiating such 
cases.
    Finally, even if the U.S. were, by some chance, successful in 
advocating its interpretation of the compatibility of such legislation 
with the WTO agreements, it would lead to the adoption of similar 
legislation in other countries with serious adverse consequences for 
U.S. exporters. As pointed out by the Congressional Research Service in 
an updated report on the CDSOA issued on August 26, 2005:
    As evident in recent appropriations legislation, Congress has also 
favored negotiations leading to recognition of the existing right of 
WTO Members to distribute collected AD and CV duties in a manner 
similar to CDSOA. This course of action is favored by many import-
competing business associations, according to industry sources. If WTO 
Members agreed, the United States, along with all other Members, would 
have the option, expressly supported by the WTO, of disbursing AD and 
CV duties to affected companies or earmarking them for other uses. Many 
economists are concerned, however, that replication of the measure by 
other countries could lead to a multiplication or inefficient trade 
remedy actions worldwide.
    The CDSOA is a lose-lose statute that is, on balance, harmful to 
the general interests of exporters, as well as producers and consumers 
in this country. The only entities that oppose repeal of the CDSOA are 
companies that are receiving or hope to receive payments under the 
statute. The longer the CDSOA remains in effect, the greater the 
continuing harm to the U.S. The FPA strongly urges the Committee to 
approve H.R. 1121 for inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills and to report it out for 
prompt and favorable consideration by the House of Representatives.

                                 

                                                 The Garlic Company
                                      Bakersfield, California 93314
                                                    August 29, 2005

To: Ways and Means Committee Submittal

    We are the owners of The Garlic Company. The Garlic Company packs 
and ships both fresh and peeled garlic. We employ approximately 125 
full time employees and 325 employees seasonally.
    We are very strongly opposed to H.R. 1121 Miscellaneous Tariff Bill 
(MTB) calling for the repeal of the CDSOA. We are also very strongly 
opposed to H.R. 2473(in the MTB), which alters the calculations of the 
``all others'' rate AD/CVD cases. This would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    The distributions made to The Garlic Company under the CDSOA have 
helped in our survival against the massive amounts of imports from 
China. However these distributions have not been the ``windfall'' that 
one reads in many publications and hears from some politicians. The 
distributions contribute but do not fully compensate for damage done to 
our industry by unscrupulous Chinese importers. Distributions made to 
The Garlic Company have enabled us to make some improvements to our 
processing systems, which have contributed to lowering our cost. It has 
also allowed us to continue to employ our attorney group, which has 
been instrumental in defending ourselves against dishonest Chinese 
importers of fresh and peeled garlic. Through this group we have been 
able to give both Customs and the Department of Commerce valuable 
information. This information has led to a ``crack down'' on the 
never--ending scams and schemes of the unscrupulous Chinese garlic 
importers. This unscrupulous activity also harms the legitimate Chinese 
importer. In the past ten years, our group, has supplied information to 
either the Department of Commerce or Customs that has led to action 
against the following schemes:

    1)  False declaration of the country of origin concerning Chinese 
garlic. This results in no duties paid or collected on Chinese garlic. 
This Chinese garlic is sold at very low prices thus driving down the 
price of domestic garlic and legitimate Chinese garlic.
    2)  Under declaring the value of imported Chinese garlic to avoid 
paying higher duties. In some cases this value was placed at a one-cent 
or a fraction of a cent. This results in incorrect and small amounts of 
duties being collected. This garlic is sold at far below market prices, 
which lowers the market for domestic and legitimately imported Chinese 
garlic.
    3)  Under declaring the amounts shipped within a container. This 
results in no duty being paid on the amounts undeclared within the 
container which enables the importer to sell at a lower than market 
price. This damages the market for the domestic shipper and the 
legitimate Chinese shipper.
    4)  Smuggling Chinese garlic from Canada into the United States. 
This results in no duties being collected and garlic that sells below 
the market price, which damages both the domestic shipper and 
legitimate importer.
    5)  Falsification of import documents. Chinese importers with high 
duty rates use the import information of Chinese importers with low or 
no duty rates. This many times occurs without the knowledge of the 
Chinese importer with the lower duty rates. This results in little or 
no duty being collected and damages the market for both the domestic 
shipper and legitimate Chinese importer.
    6)  Falsely declaring the contents of a container. An importer will 
load a container with garlic and declare it to be ginger or some other 
non-duty commodity. This results in no duties paid and harms the market 
for both the domestic shipper and legitimate Chinese importer.

    These schemes and shams are something that a domestic garlic 
producer has to live with on a daily basis. Through our group's efforts 
and with the help of some legitimate Chinese importers we are able to 
gather information, which has helped both the Department of Commerce 
and Customs, curtail some of this activity. We understand these 
government agencies are understaffed and overworked so any creditable 
information that we can supply is helpful and saves tax dollars for all 
Americans. Domestic garlic producers can compete with legitimate 
Chinese garlic importers; we cannot compete against the unscrupulous 
importers of Chinese garlic. The CDSOA funds we receive partially help 
to uncover and stop the scams and schemes of the unscrupulous Chinese 
importers. This is essential to our survival.
    No country can survive as a service oriented country. We need to 
support manufacturing and agriculture jobs in this Country for the 
long-term benefit of all our citizens. We expect our politicians to do 
their part by opposing the repeal of the CDSOA.
    We also expect our politicians to support the United States 
sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by Congress by 
fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization. We understand that Congress has called for our trade 
negotiators in the ongoing Dpha round to push for revision of the WTO 
agreements. We particularly agree that CDSOA and similar programs 
relating to individual countries' use of the AD/CVD duties they collect 
will be expressly accepted as WTO consistent. We feel this is the 
method to resolve the WTO dispute that is the basis for calls to repeal 
the Byrd Amendment. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing this very 
important issue.
            With best regards,
                                                           Joe Lane

                                                        John Layous

                                 

                                                     The Home Depot
                                               Washington, DC 20001
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable Clay E. Shaw
U.S. House of Representatives
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of The Home Depot and its 325,000 employees, I am pleased 
to submit this statement for the record in support of H.R. 1121, 
legislation that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act (CDSOA), also known as the Byrd Amendment.
    The Home Depot has long been a supporter of the free flow of goods 
and services in the global marketplace. Reducing trade barriers around 
the world and ensuring a safe supply chain is especially important to 
us as we import products from over 40 countries. In order for Home 
Depot to offer quality products, at the lowest possible prices, we 
continually strive to eliminate barriers to trade. But to convince our 
trading partners to respect the rule of law and maintain fair trading 
practices, the United States must lead by example and one important 
step towards that goal is to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled three years ago that the 
Byrd Amendment violated international trade rules. Calls to Congress by 
the Bush administration to repeal the law have gone unanswered and as a 
result a WTO panel authorized other WTO members to impose retaliatory 
tariffs on U.S. exports, which some countries have begun to impose.
    The United States was a leader in establishing the Dispute 
Settlement Body (DSU) at the WTO. In fact the United States is one of 
the most active participants of the process. This country is also the 
world's largest trading nation giving the United States an enormous 
stake in a reliable system to promote and protect free trade. 
Certainly, if we expect other nations to respect DSU decisions, we must 
also take the good with the bad and respect the rule of law. No doubt, 
many countries are watching closely to see how the United States 
addresses the WTO rulings on the Byrd Amendment; simply ignoring the 
ruling sets a precedent that we will come to regret.
    As we continue to develop our partnerships with world-class, global 
suppliers, and expand on our current operation of 1,950 stores 
throughout North America, The Home Depot urges you to push forward with 
the effort to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Kent Knutson
                                Vice President-Government Relations

                                 

                                                  The NTN Companies
                                     Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 request for comments 
and on behalf of our client, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, 
American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, NTN-BCA Corporation, 
NTN Driveshaft, Inc., and NTN-Bower Corporation (collectively, ``the 
NTN companies''), we urge the Committee to include H.R. 1121, a bill to 
repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') (popularly known as the ``Byrd 
Amendment''), in corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals.
    NTN Bearing Corporation of America (``NBCA'') is a United States 
company that imports finished bearings from NTN Corporation, a Japanese 
manufacturer of bearings and other products, and sells them to 
customers in the United States. American NTN Bearing Manufacturing 
Corporation (``ANMB''), NTN-BCA Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, and NTN-
Bower are also United States companies; all presently engage in the 
manufacture of bearings, or products that use imported bearings, in the 
United States. These companies have existed in the United States, and 
have invested consistently and increasingly in United States production 
for the past thirty years.
    These companies import products that are subject to the outstanding 
antidumping duty order on antifriction bearings from Japan. 
Additionally, many of these companies have imported products that were 
subject to other long-standing antidumping duty orders covering other 
kinds of bearings. The NTN companies, have, therefore, been involved in 
antidumping cases for approximately the past thirty years and the 
companies have firsthand knowledge of both the assessment of 
antidumping duties and the effects of such duties on the market for 
bearings.
    It is from this position of knowledge, therefore, that the NTN 
companies urge the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. The Byrd Amendment 
harms domestic consumers of bearings in a number of ways, as set forth 
below. Based on these reasons, the NTN companies believe that the 
Committee should include language repealing the Byrd Amendment in its 
Omnibus Trade Bill.
    First, the Byrd Amendment harms American manufacturers in two ways: 
1) American manufacturers pay antidumping duties on the parts and 
components used in production that are subject to antidumping duties; 
and 2) these duty payments are, through the Byrd Amendment, directly 
transferred to certain United States competitors of these companies. 
U.S. companies pay more to import components and it therefore costs 
more to produce the bearings made from those components. In addition to 
these costs, part of the money paid by certain U.S. manufacturers is 
used to subsidize the production for other manufacturers. The Byrd 
Amendment, therefore, provides a direct subsidy to certain domestic 
manufacturers at the cost of other domestic manufacturers.
    In fact, only nine domestic manufacturers received more than half 
of the Byrd Amendments payments in 2004 and only 44 domestic companies 
received more than 80 percent of the payments in the same year. 
However, recipient companies represent only a small percentage of the 
bearing producers in the United States. The Byrd Amendment should 
therefore be repealed because it confers a benefit on a small subset of 
domestic producers.
    The effects of the Byrd Amendment are not restricted to domestic 
manufacturers of ball bearings; certain domestic sales companies, which 
sell imported product in the United States, are also affected. NTN 
Bearing Corporation of America, a U.S. sales company, pays antidumping 
duties on the imported, finished bearings. Additionally, NTN 
Driveshaft, Inc., a manufacturer of specialized products used in the 
automotive market, pays antidumping duties on imported bearings. To 
date, the United States has paid more than $1 billion, collected from 
manufacturers, distributors, and other importers, directly to those 
companies that supported antidumping petitions. The Byrd Amendment 
therefore affects large segments of the domestic bearing market, and 
other U.S. markets, again, to the advantage of a very small segment of 
those markets.
    Second, to be eligible to receive payments pursuant to the Byrd 
Amendment, a United States company must support the petition that 
requests the institution of an antidumping duty order. This requisite 
clearly produces an incentive to support an antidumping petition and 
widen the requested scope of the case. Additionally, the allocation of 
Byrd Amendment money is based on ``qual ified expenditures,'' which are 
not monitored or audited by Customs or any government agency. In the 
long run, then, the Byrd Amendment can hinder the expansion of United 
States industry because the free receipt of these funds creates a 
disincentive to commit additional investment to United States 
production; minimal production is all that is required to receive Byrd 
Amendment money.
    Third, the Byrd Amendment increases the costs of importing raw 
materials and components of finished products by encouraging the 
initiation and prolonging of trade cases. These increases are passed 
along the entire supply chain, increasing costs and uncertainty at each 
point. The Byrd Amendment additionally harms the consuming industries 
within the supply chain because, while these industr ies are subject to 
increased prices because of the cases that generate Byrd funds, they 
have no ability to participate meaningfully in these underlying trade 
cases.
    Finally, the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') has determined that 
the Byrd Amendment conflicts with the obligation to free and open trade 
to which the United States committed when it became a member of the 
WTO. The United States' failure to repeal the Byrd Amendment led the 
WTO to authorize eight countries (including the European Union group of 
countries) to retaliate against the United States. This retaliation, in 
the form of increased duties for United States exports to the eight 
countries, is yet another cost of the Byrd Amendment to United States 
industries. Retaliation proves that the Byrd Amendment only serves to 
re-allocate money among countries and companies, without regard to 
competitive market principles.
    It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Byrd Amendment is 
simply a form of corporate welfare. Companies that compete solely on 
the merits of the product--cost, quality, delivery--may not receive 
additional funding from Byrd Amendment subsidies. This does not 
preserve American industry because a few companies receive bonus cash 
while others lack this competitive advantage in the market. This can 
only atrophy the competitive drive of the subsidized companies while 
the non-subsidized companies lack equivalent funds for research and 
investment. The ultimate loser is the American consumer, who suffers 
from decreased competition and innovation.
    In conclusion, the NTN companies believe that the Byrd Amendment 
violates United States trade policy, is an unfair subsidy to a few 
domestic manufacturers, and unfairly increases the costs of doing 
business in the United States. The NTN companies therefore urge the 
Committee to repeal the Byrd Amendment now, before United States 
manufacturers are further damaged by the law.
            Very truly yours,
                                                   Kazumune V. Kano

                                 

                                                      Titan America
                                       Coral Springs, Florida 33071
                                     Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441
                                                    August 15, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1121 (CDSOA)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Titan America and its 1,900 employees to express 
our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can by no 
means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to existing 
law.
    Titan America is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, and operates 
construction materials manufacturing facilities throughout the eastern 
United States. Over 1,200 employees are based in Florida where I work 
as the Human Resources Manager.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Orlando Vazquez

                                                    Timothy Kuebler

                                                    Robert A. Sells

                                 

                                                  Titan America LLC
                                            Norfolk, Virginia 23502
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Committee's July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am 
writing on behalf of Titan America LLC and its 1922 employees to 
express our strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills. H.R. 1121 is a highly controversial bill that would 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA''). It can 
by no means be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to 
existing law.
    Titan America LLC is headquartered in Norfolk, VA and through 
subsidiaries operates one cement plant in Miami, FL, one cement plant 
in Roanoke, VA and 14 cement and aggregates terminals along the Eastern 
seaboard. We also operate more than 50 ready-mix concrete plants (17 in 
Virginia and 35 in Florida), five concrete block plants in Florida and 
five fly ash processing facilities from Florida to Massachusetts. Over 
1200 of our employees live and work in Florida, where Titan America in 
2004 completed a $200 million plus modernization project, which doubled 
the capacity of our Miami cement plant to 1.8 million tons annually and 
made it one of the must environmentally friendly and efficient plants 
in the United States.
    In the late 1980's, our industry was severely damaged by dumped 
imports of cement from Mexico. The unfairly low prices of Mexican 
cement caused U.S. cement plants to close and took away any incentive 
to invest in new cement capacity. In 1990, the United States imposed 
antidumping duties on Mexican cement. Unfortunately, however, the 
dumping has not stopped. In fact, in the 13 administrative reviews 
conducted since the order was imposed, the Department of Commerce found 
that the dumping margin of CEMEX, S.A., the dominant Mexican producer, 
has averaged 63 percent. That means that even with the antidumping 
order in place, CEMEX's cement prices to customers in Mexico have been 
63 percent higher than its cement prices to customers in the United 
States. The root cause of this unfair pricing behavior--a Mexican 
cement market that is closed to foreign competition--also has not 
changed since the antidumping order was imposed. The solution is not to 
repeal CDSOA, but to first force Mexico to open its economy to free 
trade in Portland cement.
    CDSOA both discourages continued dumping and also compensates the 
victims of such continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that 
antidumping duties are distributed to the supporters of the original 
antidumping petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports. It 
also has no impact on the ultimate price of fairly traded imports of 
cement, since cement is a widely traded commodity.
    CDSOA distributions to date under the cement antidumping order have 
been very limited because the Mexican Government has refused to appoint 
NAFTA panelists to hear pending appeals of administrative reviews going 
back a number of years. It would be extremely unfair to U.S. cement 
producers to repeal CDSOA before these very old entries are liquidated 
and available for distribution. When distributed, these duties will 
help U.S. cement producers to invest in new production capacity and to 
create new jobs.
    Contrary to what some consumers of unfairly priced imports have 
claimed, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In January 2004, 
Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change course while the 
WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your Committee should urge 
Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial issue in the Doha 
Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
                                                    Russell A. Fink
                     Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary

                                 

                                                 Trade Masters, LLC
                                      Peachtree City, Georgia 30269
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Trade Masters, LLC, I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1121, legislation to repeal the 
``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act'' (CDSOA), commonly known as 
the Byrd Amendment. Our company strongly supports this legislation's 
inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Since its inception in 1995, Trade Masters has been supplying 
medium and large sized retailers throughout the United States and 
Canada with quality, value priced merchandise imported from various 
locations in Asia.
    As you are aware, in 2003 a group of domestic furniture 
manufacturers worked to restrict consumer access to affordable high 
quality wooden bedroom furniture by filing an anti-dumping petition 
against furniture from China with the Commerce Department and the 
International Trade Commission. We believe that these petitioners were 
primarily motivated by the prospects of Byrd Amendment funds.
    Now that Commerce and the ITC approved the duties on Chinese wooden 
bedroom furniture, Trade Masters not only must pay the duties but also 
see the monies in the future transferred to selected domestic 
manufacturers that we compete directly against! Dumping duties by their 
nature are supposed to increase the costs of goods, thereby making 
``unfair'' imports ``fair.'' Transferring the duties back to the U.S. 
producers causes a double benefit to those companies who filed the 
petition. Not only do they raise the price of goods to U.S. consumers, 
but the U.S. producers then collect huge payments from the government, 
with no requirements on what they do with this money.
    The Byrd Amendment actually helps very few companies. More than 
half of the Byrd Amendment payments in 2004 went to nine companies and 
about 80 percent to only 44 companies nationwide.
    Again, the furniture manufacturers who filed the trade petition 
will not be required to use the Byrd money they receive for job 
retraining or to improve their competitiveness. Instead, these 
companies can sit back and receive a government handout on every wood 
bedroom product imported into this country from China, and it goes 
right to their bottom-line. The American consumers depend on having 
access to quality furniture for their homes at a reasonable price. We 
ask that the Trade Subcommittee consider the needs of importers who 
supply these products, our employees, and our customers. The Byrd 
Amendment was passed without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress and has done unforeseen injury to American 
companies.
    As a matter of fundamental fairness, we ask that you include H.R. 
1121 in the miscellaneous trade bill and once again applaud you for 
your leadership on this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Ron O'Dell

                                 

  Statement of Thomas M. Suber, U.S. Dairy Export Council, Arlington, 
                                Virginia
    Given the recent retaliation action taken by the Mexican 
government, the U.S. Dairy Export Council strongly supports H.R. 1121. 
This legislation would repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
commonly referred to as the ``Byrd Amendment''. The U.S. Dairy Export 
Council (USDEC) is a non-profit, independent membership organization 
that represents the export trade interests of U.S. milk producers, 
dairy cooperatives, proprietary processors, and export traders. The 
Council's mission is to increase the volume and value of U.S. dairy 
product exports.
    In 2003 the World Trade Organization ruled that the Byrd Amendment 
violates WTO rules and therefore that the U.S. must either repeal the 
law or be subject to retaliation. By choosing not to repeal the law, 
Congress has effectively chosen to allow countries to impose 
retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. In order to exercise this right, 
Mexico announced in August that it was imposing sanctions against U.S. 
dairy exports in retaliation for continued use by the U.S. of the Byrd 
Amendment. A new 30% tariff has been placed on dairy blends--H.S. code 
1901.90.05.
    The sanctions effectively halt a thriving business for U.S. dairy 
exporters. U.S. market share in Mexico has grown in recent years, 
particularly since prices for U.S. skim milk powder--the main 
constituent of dairy blends--have become more competitive. According to 
data from the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service, the United States 
shipped 73,750 tons last year under tariff line 1901.90.05, valued at 
$143.8 million. In the first five months of 2005, U.S. exporters sold 
43,001 tons, valued at $103.2 million. Market share has climbed from 
12% in 2001 to nearly 85% today. These sales have been particularly 
important for U.S. dairy producers and dairy processors, as well as the 
U.S. government, because they have helped to sustain the price of 
powdered dairy products, thereby helping to avert costly U.S. 
government price support purchases of skim milk powder by the Commodity 
Credit Corporation.
    The WTO authorized Mexico to assess damages of $20.9 million per 
year on U.S. exports. Unfortunately, the 30% tariff on dairy blends is 
high enough that it will make our product uncompetitive and effectively 
shut down this sizable dairy export business, far exceeding the damages 
authorized by the WTO.
    Because of this situation and the adverse the Mexican tariff has on 
our dairy exports, USDEC urges Congress to support H.R. 1121. We 
believe that Mexico is inconsistently applying its WTO obligations 
through the use of an effectively blocking duty to a tariff line 
totaling such a sizeable level of imports. Despite that, however, we 
believe that the best avenue available to quickly solve this dilemma is 
to promptly repeal the Byrd Amendment in order to allow our hard-won 
trading opportunities for this product to escape severe harm and resume 
the benefits it provides to U.S. dairy producers and suppliers.

                                 

                                 U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Corp.
                                             Hialeah, Florida 33018
                                                       May 30, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Members of the Committee:

    U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Corp. is an American manufacturer of cast iron 
products and one of the beneficiaries of the funds recovered under the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''), also 
known as the Byrd Amendment. We are a family-owned business, 
established in 1916, and I am the third generation to have the honor to 
manage this business. U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Corp. currently employs over 
250 people in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
    It has long been our policy to reinvest earnings to enhance and 
expand our operations, improve productivity, and improve working 
conditions for our employees. During the past four years, with the 
assistance of the funds we have received from the CDSOA, we installed a 
new charging crane for our melting department, improved our existing 
clean-up room, acquired the ability to produce ductile iron products, 
and installed a new shakeout and sand return belt system which, with 
the other improvements I mentioned, will allow us to continue to 
develop our business. Growing our business enables us to maintain our 
current work force. It also permits us to create new jobs with 
competitive compensation and benefit packages.
    American manufacturers have a difficult time competing with foreign 
companies not burdened with the additional costs associated with 
environmental laws, OSHA regulations, insurance requirements, etc. 
Americans are not competing on a level playing field. The CDSOA helps 
to some degree by mitigating one of the factors that creates this un-
level playing field. We all need to keep fighting to keep the CDSOA in 
place so that American manufacturers can survive in this global economy 
and continue to create good jobs for our citizens.
                                                   Alex L. DeBogory
                 Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                     Union de Empresas Siderurgicas
                                                      Madrid, Spain
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C., U.S.A

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    UNESID is the Spanish Steel Industry Association. It gathers all 
the Spanish steelmakers and more than 75% of the Steel downstream 
products companies.
    On behalf of its members, UNESID, as interested party, wants to 
take the opportunity to provide comments on H.R. 1121, which aims to 
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (Section 
754 of the Tariff act of 1930, as amended).
    The Spanish steel companies have been adversely influenced by the 
``Byrd Amendment'', and we support the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
miscellaneous tariff bill, because:
1. Byrd Amendment is a powerful engine to distort fair international 
        trade
        The massive refund of antidumping and countervailing 
duties affords a financial incentive to U.S. industries to file trade 
law actions, to broaden the scope of such cases (sometimes including 
products not produced in the United States), and to engage in harassing 
tactics to ensure the continuation of orders with the greatest possible 
margins. These incentives run counter to the intended purpose of the 
trade laws--to remedy the injury caused by dumping and subsidies.
        The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit to exporting 
companies into the U.S. market: first, foreign companies are forced to 
pay these duties; and second, due to the Byrd Amendment, the duty 
payments are then transferred to their U.S. competitors.
2. Byrd Amendment is inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) 
        rules that were approved by the U.S. Congress.
        The World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd 
Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade.
        The United States has exhausted its appeals under the 
WTO regulation. A panel of experts ruled against the United States. 
That decision was ratified by the Appellate Body. Under the rules, the 
United States had 11 months--to December 27, 2003--to bring its statue 
into compliance with the WTO legal determination. That was not 
accomplished, and another 20 months have passed without corrective 
action.
        As is their right, adversely affected trading partners 
have begun to take measures to rebalance concessions between them and 
the United States. The European Union, followed by Canada, Japan, and 
most recently Mexico--four of the leading trade partners of the U.S.--
have imposed tariffs on various U.S. exports. This is the most 
widespread retaliatory measure ever taken under the WTO, and additional 
trading partners may take actions of their own in coming months.
        Further delay in correcting the legislation will add to 
the distorted effects, invite further retaliatory measures by trading 
partners, and diminish the credibility of the United States as a 
leading member of the system of trade rules embodied by the WTO.
        By contrast, timely repeal of Section 754 would 
eliminate an irritant in U.S. relations with the European Union and 
other leading trade partners, eliminate the threat of further 
retaliatory measures, and bolster the credibility of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.

    UNESID thinks that the repeal of Section 754 should be adopted 
without delay.
            Yours sincerely,
                                             Juan Ignacio Bartolome
                                                   Director General

                                 

                               Union of Italian Pasta Manufacturers
                                                        Rome, Italy
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    On behalf of the members of the Union of Italian Pasta 
Manufacturers (UNIPI--Unione Industriali Pastai Italiani), I would like 
to express our strong support for the inclusion of the bill H.R. 1121, 
repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), in the 
miscellaneous trade bill.
    UNIPI is the national, non-profit, organization, established in 
1968 to promote Italian pasta industry interests.
    Our organization closely monitored the implementation of the U.S. 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act in October 2000, which diverts 
proceeds from anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases to U.S. 
companies that file a trade case.
    Pasta is one of the main EC products on which anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties have been collected and then redistributed to the 
U.S. competitors under the Byrd Amendment.
    Since 1996 our companies have been imposed by the U.S. government 
unjustified tariff barriers creating serious market distortions and 
trade problems.
    A WTO panel was asked for clarification and the EU together, with 
eight other WTO members, welcomed the Appellate Body report on 27 
January 2003, which clearly rejected the Byrd Amendment. However, UNIPI 
regrets that no bill has passed the U.S. Congress to repeal the illegal 
practice in order to implement the ruling and comply with WTO rules. In 
the meantime, the EU imposed retaliatory measures, but it can only be 
seen as a second-best and intermediate measure.
    The Italian Pasta Industry, the world market leader in pasta 
production, consumption and export, fully supports the repeal of the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act by inclusion of the bill H.R. 
1121 into a miscellaneous trade bill because:

      the Byrd Amendment has shown to threaten exports of pasta 
from Italy, already heavily penalized by high antidumping and 
countervailing duties, that are increasing exporters costs and 
uncertainty;
      it encourages U.S. producers to file anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty cases and to keep existing AD and CVD orders in 
place with the only objective to receive money from these proceedings 
which is equivalent to a subsidy;
      the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd 
Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade yet the U.S. has 
ignored this ruling. U.S. authorities have already distributed to 
domestic petitioners more than U.S.$1 billion, and more than U.S.$33 
millions have been given to our direct competitors in the pasta sector.

    UNIPI members, accounting for more than 90 per cent of the Italian 
pasta production, rely on consistent and stable international rule-
based trading system for import and export, based on competition and 
market forces and not on unilateral trade actions that have an opposite 
purpose.
    We trust our position will be taken in due consideration by the 
Trade Subcommittee in deciding which bills will be part of the 
miscellaneous trade package.
            Yours truly,
                                                        Mario Rummo
                                                           Chairman

                                 

  Union of Organizations of Manufacturers of Pasta Products of the 
                                                               E.U.
                                                        Rome, Italy
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    On behalf of the members of the Union of Organizations of 
manufacturers of Pasta Products of the E.U. (UNAFPA), I would like to 
express our strong support for the inclusion of the bill H.R. 1121, 
repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), in the 
miscellaneous trade bill.
    UNAFPA is a non-profit organization, established in 1960 by the 
Associations of Pasta Manufacturers of the European Union, with the aim 
to ensure the definition, representation and defence of the interests 
of the E.U. pasta industry.
    Our organization closely monitored the implementation of the U.S. 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act in October 2000, which diverts 
proceeds from anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases to U.S. 
companies that file a trade case.
    Pasta is one of the main EC products on which anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties have been collected and then redistributed to the 
U.S. competitors under the Byrd Amendment. Since 1996 Italian 
companies, that represent about 74% of total EU pasta production, have 
been imposed by the U.S. government unjustified tariff barriers 
creating serious market distortions and trade problems.
    A WTO panel was asked for clarification and the EU together, with 
eight other WTO members, welcomed the Appellate Body report on 27 
January 2003, which clearly rejected the Byrd Amendment. However, 
UNAFPA regrets that no bill has passed the U.S. Congress to repeal the 
illegal practice in order to implement the ruling and comply with WTO 
rules. In the meantime, the EU imposed retaliatory measures, but it can 
only be seen as a second-best and intermediate measure.
    The E.U. Pasta Industry, the world market leader in pasta 
production, consumption and export, fully supports the repeal of the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act by inclusion of the bill H.R. 
1121 into a miscellaneous trade bill because:

      the Byrd Amendment has shown to threaten exports of pasta 
from Italy, EU main exporter, already heavily penalized by high 
antidumping and countervailing duties, that are increasing exporters 
costs and uncertainty;
      it encourages U.S. producers to file anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty cases and to keep existing AD and CVD orders in 
place with the only objective to receive money from these proceedings 
which is equivalent to a subsidy;
      The World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd 
Amendment violates WTO agreements and distorts trade yet the U.S. has 
ignored this ruling. U.S. authorities have already distributed to 
domestic petitioners more than U.S.$1 billion, and more than U.S.$33 
millions have been given to our direct competitors in the pasta sector.
    UNAFPA members rely on consistent and stable international rule-
based trading system for import and export, based on competition and 
market forces and not on unilateral trade actions that have an opposite 
purpose.
    We trust our position will be taken into account by the Trade 
Subcommittee in deciding which bills will be part of the miscellaneous 
trade package.
    Thank you for your attention.
            Yours truly,
                                                        Mario Rummo
                                                           Chairman

                                 

                                    United States Steel Corporation
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of United States Steel Corporation (``U.S. Steel''), we 
would like to respond to your request for written comments with respect 
to technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals. U.S. Steel fully endorses the comments submitted 
by the American Iron and Steel Institute opposing the inclusion of H.R. 
1121 and H.R. 2473 in the miscellaneous tariff bill.
    Both of the bills at issue are controversial and have no place in a 
measure intended to include non-controversial tariff adjustments and 
other similar measures. H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''), apparently in response to a 
groundless dispute settlement decision at the World Trade Organization 
(``WTO''). CDSOA plays a critical role in assisting industries and 
workers injured by unfair trade, and Congress has clearly expressed its 
view that this issue should be resolved in ongoing WTO negotiations. 
Similarly, H.R. 2473 attempts to respond to another flawed WTO 
decision, one which involves a highly technical issue, and which could 
negatively impact enforcement of U.S. antidumping laws. Such a complex 
matter should not be addressed in a miscellaneous tariff bill.
    We appreciate the chance to comment on these issues.
                                                 Terrence D. Straub
        Senior Vice President--Public Policy & Governmental Affairs

                                 

                                                United Steelworkers
                                     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the United Steelworkers union (USW), I am writing in 
response to the request for public comments regarding technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. The United Steelworkers would like to state its strong 
objections to the inclusion of two proposals (H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473) 
in the package of bills the Committee is considering on policy grounds 
and because they are highly controversial.
    The miscellaneous tariff package should not be a vehicle for making 
major policy changes nor for addressing World Trade Organization 
compliance issues. While the USW opposes the underlying legislation, 
the process should allow for individual consideration, debate and votes 
on issues as important as that which the bills cover.
H.R. 1121:
    H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(CDSOA)--also known as the Byrd Amendment. CDSOA has helped to ensure 
that producing interests here in the U.S. that have been victimized by 
unfair and predatory trade practices will be able to continue to invest 
in plant, equipment and people in the face of continuing illegal 
actions by our trading partners. We must maintain

 the basic components of our trade law that give us the ability to 
fight for the public interest. The WTO decision with regard to CDSOA 
seeks to impose obligations on the U.S. that were never agreed to at 
the negotiating table. This not only undermines our economic interests, 
but undermines support for the WTO overall.
    Congress has spoken out on this issue in a number of different 
ways--primarily by asking our United States Trade Representative to 
negotiate for the retention of the CDSOA as part of the Doha Round. The 
USW's view is that this is the right policy to pursue on its own 
merits, but will also increase confidence among the public that their 
government will fight for their interests. We believe that the USTR 
needs to be given the time--and the support--necessary to be successful 
in these negotiations. And, the WTO as an institution, and other
    WTO members need to recognize that an open trading system will not 
survive based on arbitrarily imposed obligations, but must be rules-
based.
    Reaching a negotiated solution at the WTO that allows the U.S.--and 
our trading partners--to distribute tariff revenues as they do any 
other funds available to a government and with no additional 
restrictions is the appropriate course to follow.
    CDSOA is already a provision of U.S. law and, therefore, its 
retention is currently assumed in the budget baseline. Repealing CDSOA 
would be correctly viewed by many as imposing new and higher costs on 
our farmers, workers and businesses. A miscellaneous trade package 
should not increase costs to U.S. agricultural and business interests. 
As you know, CDSOA allows for the reimbursement of eligible investments 
by injured parties in plant, equipment and people. Repealing this law 
could dramatically increase the cost of doing business and diminish the 
investments that are needed for these entities to remain competitive in 
the face of unfair and predatory trade practices by our competitors. 
Miscellaneous trade legislation should not be the vehicle for a revenue 
increase on U.S. taxpayers.
    CDSOA retains enormous support among Members of Congress and the 
public. We would hope that the final package you develop would not 
include H.R. 1121 or any proposals to modify or repeal CDSOA.
H.R. 2473:
    H.R. 2473 seeks to amend the antidumping laws of the country to 
alter how the ``all other'' rate is calculated. This legislative 
proposal is intended to respond to a decision by a WTO Appellate Body. 
The ``all other'' rate should continue to be a permissible practice and 
its retention will ensure that our trade laws can continue to function 
as Congress intended. H.R. 2473 would, in fact, increase the difficulty 
in administering our trade laws--an issue which the Appellate Body 
recognized when they issued their decision.
    Inclusion of these bills would result in the proposed package 
becoming extremely controversial and would attract substantial 
opposition. The underlying issues which the bills seek to impact are 
import policy considerations on their own. As well, overreaching by the 
WTO is an important issue for the Congress to address--and should not 
seek to minimize that debate through consideration of major policy 
changes and compliance as part of what is generally considered to be a 
non-controversial package of legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                             William J. Klinefelter
                                         Assistant to the President

                                 

                                                   Up Country, Inc.
                                             Cumming, Georgia 30041
                                                  September 2, 2005
Honorable Clay Shaw, Jr.
Trade Subcommittee
House Ways and Means Committee

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on HR1121 including 
legislation to repeal the Byrd Amendment. My husband and I own a small 
company that imports furniture. We are paying antidumping duty of 
198.8% and feel it does not level the playing field at all but tries to 
remove us from the playing field, all the while subsidizing the 
petitioners who also import from third world countries. My company 
strongly supports this legislation. Putting duties collected back in 
the hands of the petitioners is clearly a conflict of interest and 
gives petitioners a financial incentive for filing dumping cases.
    I am sure several respondents will articulate better than I why 
this should be re-

pealed. I would however like to address how monies collected could be 
used in a constructive manner. The China boom has definitely affected 
manufacturing in the U.S. and jobs have been lost in large numbers. It 
seems that offering relief to the displaced workers would deliver the 
monies where they are actually needed. Job retraining and short term 
grants for living expenses during the job retraining or relocation 
grants are viable ideas. I also recognize that some U.S. manufacturers 
also need some relief and perhaps training to make them more 
competitive in the global marketplace is essential. After all, when the 
DOC investigated thoroughly the largest companies in the furniture case 
with China, average rate of dumping was found to be only 6%. The only 
ones paying the 198.8% are the ones that were not investigated so there 
is no evidence they are dumping at all; only a lack of evidence they 
aren't. The figure of 198.8% was alleged by the petitioners and it has 
stuck. This scenario not only suggests minimal dumping but points to a 
bigger problem of remaining competitive in the global economy. Whatever 
monies collected should be directed to solve these bigger issues.
    I hope that the Chairman will bear with me while I explain my own 
stake in this issue. My name is Leslie Thompson and my husband and I 
own a small company, Up Country, Inc. in Cumming, GA. We import 
furniture from China and represent two other companies headquartered in 
France. We have never purchased from U.S. manufacturers because the 
style of furniture we sell is European and has historically not been 
made in factories, but in small workshops. In the last 4 years as the 
dollar declined in value against the euro, our business has drastically 
reduced. In response to this, we went to China to look for other 
opportunities. We started importing from China but found it very 
difficult to find factories that would do small orders. After 
repeatedly facing this, we decided to open our own small factory north 
of Shanghai and dedicated our factory June 2004. The Department of 
Commerce instituted antidumping duty of 198.8% on bedroom furniture 
only one week later. Since last fall, when we shipped our first 
container of goods, we have been paying antidumping duty. This has 
resulted in a significant financial burden for our company. My factory 
in China is wholly owned by my husband and myself and we ship to 
ourselves here in the U.S., yet paying duties designed to hinder the 
Chinese from dumping. Our company was never any competition to Mr. 
Bassett or any of the companies in the original petition since we sell 
mostly to designer's one piece at a time. We are a niche player in the 
marketplace of furniture but we do have our place. We do not sell 
bedroom suites as the petition was initially designed to target. I am 
sure it was not the intention to put small companies out of business 
but that is the way I feel.
    Although the request for comments was for the return of duties to 
the petitioners I find the entire process not without flaws. I have not 
found a venue to question the process. This has been devastating to our 
company and our employees and has truly made it difficult for us to 
stay in business. In a meeting last November, Asst. Secretary Jochum 
told me we were what they call ``unintended consequences''. He told me 
about the possibility of applying for a New Shipper Review if the order 
were finalized. He also mentioned that there was an ombudsman in the 
federal government that helped people file petitions against exporters/
importers and he thought that same office should be able to help me 
with this process. I was able to file the application for a New Shipper 
Review on July 31st on my own. After reading the required documents for 
the evaluation process, it seems so complicated that legal counsel 
seems to be required. I have consulted two legal firms regarding this 
and received quotes of $60,000 to $150,000. This is astronomical and 
cost prohibitive for a company of our size. As of yesterday (Sept. 
1st), the Assistant Secretary of Commerce signed an order to initiate a 
review of our company as a New Shipper. From questionnaire issuance, I 
will have 30 days to complete 3 gargantuan questionnaires and it 
appears experience in trade law is obligatory. I know I need help and 
feel that legal counsel should not be a prerequisite to request a 
review by my own government or it should not be so complicated that I 
cannot do it myself. (Assistance is given to petitioners when they want 
to file for duty. I have been assured the analysts will assist in any 
way they can and to date have been very polite and helpful; however 
they are the ones ruling on my case.
    Is it possible for the government to offer me technical or legal 
assistance to get through this process?
    I appreciate the efforts of the House Ways and Means Committee to 
evaluate these critical issues.
            Kind regards,
                                                 Leslie W. Thompson

                                 
                                                 U.S. Magnesium LLC
                                         Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
                                                    August 17, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1121 (CDSOA)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on 
behalf of U.S. Magnesium LLC (``U.S. Magnesium'') and its 420 employees 
to oppose strongly the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''). The bill would substantially change U.S. law to the 
disadvantage of companies like U.S. Magnesium that have made major 
investments based on the assumption that our trade laws will remain 
intact and will be strictly enforced. By no stretch of the imagination 
can this bill be fairly described as a ``technical correction'' to 
current law.
    U.S. Magnesium is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, and is the sole 
remaining producer of primary magnesium in this country. The U.S. 
magnesium industry has been under assault from unfairly traded imports 
for more than a decade. During the past five years, two other major 
American companies--Dow Chemical and Alcoa--were forced to exit the 
industry for that reason. U.S. Magnesium has been able to survive in 
this business only because our government has enforced our trade laws 
when we have asked it to do so.
    Magnesium is the lightest of all structural metals, and it is used 
in sophisticated commercial, industrial, and military applications. 
Among other things, magnesium is increasingly used by the automotive 
industry to reduce the weight of vehicles and thereby conserve energy.
    Notwithstanding the severe harm that U.S. Magnesium has suffered 
from unfair trade, U.S. Magnesium has made major investments to upgrade 
and expand its operations, and to make its operations more 
environmentally friendly. In recent years, U.S. Magnesium has invested 
more than $50 million to develop and install new electrolytic cells to 
produce magnesium that have greatly enhanced the company's 
productivity, reduced its energy consumption, and dramatically 
curtailed the pollution associated with magnesium production. The 
success of these efforts has been recognized in awards given to our 
company by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of 
Utah, among others.
    This year, our industry won antidumping cases against imported 
magnesium from China and Russia. These cases were necessary because 
magnesium producers in these countries took measures to evade the 
effects of prior, successful cases that were brought against China and 
Russia.
    As a result of the most recent cases, the profitability of our 
company has improved. Consequently, the company has received the 
approval of its owner to proceed with substantial new capital 
investments that will increase our capacity, and further enhance our 
productivity.
    With the antidumping orders now in place, however, we are greatly 
concerned that some exporters will continue to dump, absorb the 
antidumping duties, and refuse to raise prices to non-injurious levels. 
As previously indicated, our experience has proven that magnesium 
producers in countries such as China and Russia will do whatever it 
takes to achieve and maintain a dominant position in this market.
    The CDSOA does not in any way interfere with fair trade. It is 
intended to discourage continued dumping and to compensate the victims 
of such unfair trade. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA 
distributions. Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly-traded imports.
    Furthermore, despite the claims of some consumers of dumped imports 
to the contrary, the CDSOA has not spurred the filing of groundless 
antidumping petitions. We have filed a number of antidumping and 
countervailing duty petitions, both before and after the CDSOA went 
into effect. We did so because we were being injured by unfairly priced 
imports--not because of CDSOA--and the U.S. Government subsequently 
found that our complaints were well-founded. Moreover, it is our under-

standing that the number of antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
filed in this country has actually fallen--not risen--since the CDSOA 
was enacted.
    Finally, it would be especially unwise for Congress to consider the 
repeal of CDSOA at this time because this would fatally undermine the 
position of U.S. trade negotiators in Geneva. Other nations are now 
considering a proposal by the United States to change the WTO 
Antidumping Agreement to clarify that that the CDSOA is WTO-consistent. 
This proposal was advanced pursuant to the Congressional direction to 
the Administration in January 2004 to negotiate a solution to this 
issue in the Doha Round of WTO talks. Congress should not take any 
action that would impair the ability of our negotiators to resolve this 
controversial issue in those discussions.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Lee R. Brown
                                 Vice President, U.S. Magnesium LLC

                                 

                                                  Vanguard Plastics
                                        Farmers Branch, Texas 75244
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on 
behalf of Vanguard Plastics, Inc. and its 847 employees to express our 
strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''). The bill is highly controversial. It cannot be fairly 
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
    Vanguard Plastics, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, TX, is a U.S. 
producer of plastic retail carry-out bags. We operate six plastic bag 
making plants located in the states of California, Florida, Missouri, 
Texas and Virginia. We also produce other related products in a plant 
in Texas.
    Last year, our industry won antidumping cases against polyethylene 
retail carrier bags (``PRCBs'') from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. 
With the antidumping orders now in place, we are concerned that some 
exporters are continuing to dump, absorbing the antidumping duties, and 
refusing to raise prices to non-injurious levels. CDSOA both 
discourages continued dumping and also compensates the victims of such 
continuing unfair trade. The law merely provides that antidumping 
duties are distributed to the supporters of the original antidumping 
petition. If and when the dumping stops, so do the CDSOA distributions. 
Thus, CDSOA has no impact on fairly traded imports.
    Contrary to false claims of some consumers of unfairly priced 
imports, CDSOA has not led to the filing of frivolous antidumping 
petitions. In fact, the filing of new petitions has fallen sharply 
since CDSOA was enacted in 2000. Our industry filed our antidumping 
petitions because we were being injured by unfairly priced imports, not 
because of CDSOA.
    Finally, it makes no sense to repeal CDSOA while negotiators in 
Geneva are considering a United States proposal to change the WTO 
Antidumping Agreement to clarify that that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, Congress 
should continue to urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this 
controversial issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
                                                  William C. Seanor
                                                     Chairman & CEO

                                                Lawrence G. Johnson
                                        Vice Chairman and President

                                                     Jerry Mialaret
                                                      Plant Manager

                                                        Peter Loebs
                                                      Plant Manager

                                                      Robert Bailey
                                    Vice President of Manufacturing

                                                   Darwin Groesbeck
                                  Vice President, West Coast Region

                                                    Terry Phillippe
                                                 Operations Manager

                                                       Michael Cole
                                                 Production Manager

                                                       Doug Johnson
                                                 Production Manager

                                 

                                    Vaughan Furniture Company, Inc.
                                              Galax, Virginia 24333
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Vaughan Furniture Company, Inc. and its 590 employees strongly 
oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. The Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be preserved to 
maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded imports. Congress 
should not treat its revocation as some sort of ``technical 
correction.''
    Vaughan Furniture Company has corporate offices in Galax, Virginia 
and operates two manufacturing plants there, along with a veneer plant 
and a distribution center.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
                                                 William B. Vaughan
                                                  President/CEO/COB

                                 

                                  Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company
                                              Galax, Virginia 24333
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company and its 1200+ employees 
strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be 
preserved to maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded 
imports. Congress should not treat its revocation as some sort of 
``technical correction.''
    I am the President and CEO of Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, 
which is a domestic manufacturer of wooden bedroom and dining room 
furniture. Vaughan-Bassett is headquartered in Galax, Virginia and 
operates furniture manufacturing plants in Galax and Atkins, Virginia 
and in Elkin, North Carolina.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. I was the chairman of a 
coalition of 30 U.S. manufacturers that asked for an investigation of 
wooden bedroom furniture imported from China.
    Our industry's antidumping petition was opposed by over 30 law 
firms that represented the Chinese Government and over 100 Chinese 
companies. The Chinese Government even helped pay the legal fees of the 
Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our case, and the United States 
imposed antidumping duties to offset the dumped prices. Despite the 
antidumping order, however, we fear that some Chinese furniture 
exporters are continuing to dump their product in the United States at 
very low prices. They simply absorb the duties rather than adjust their 
prices to non-injurious levels as the law was intended.
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                John D. Bassett III
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

  Statement of Mark Allegranza, Vessey and Company, Inc., El Centro, 
                               California
    Vessey and Company, Inc. is a California grower, packer, and 
shipper of produce with operations in El Centro and Coalinga, both in 
California. The Vessey family is one of the oldest farming businesses 
in California, having been established in 1915. Vessey and Company, 
Inc. carries a payroll of over 100 employees and hires outside labor 
contractors that employ many more to perform a variety of jobs, 
including harvesting and packing garlic in the San Joaquin Valley of 
California.
    The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in Chinese garlic 
entering the USA and marketed at prices dramatically below the cost of 
domestically produced product. In 1994, the Commerce Department issued 
an antidumping order imposing a 376% duty on Chinese garlic, but after 
a few years of relief, imports from China now exceed the levels that 
prompted the order, largely because of abuse of the ``new shipper'' 
provisions in the law and other circumvention schemes.
    Despite Chinese exploitation of loopholes in the antidumping law, 
one provision that has helped Vessey and Company, Inc. and other 
California garlic growers to compete with dumped Chinese imports has 
been the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA, also 
known as the Byrd Amendment), which distributes assessed antidumping 
duties to the industries injured by dumping, rather than keeping that 
money in the general fund. We understand that there is currently a 
bill, H.R. 1121, in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) being 
considered by your Committee, that would repeal the CDSOA. We 
respectfully voice our strong opposition to H.R. 1121, and also to H.R. 
2473 (also in the MTB), which would reduce the dumping margins assigned 
to ``all other'' exporters covered by antidumping orders. Passage of 
either or both of these bills would be greatly detrimental to the 
garlic industry (and many others as well).
    The number of acres of garlic produced has dropped dramatically in 
recent years and we are concerned that at some point, it will be almost 
impossible to gain back the lost acres once they are out of production. 
If the United States does not maintain effective remedies against 
unfair import competition, the California garlic industry could some 
day be facing irreparable damage. The CDSOA is one such remedy that has 
contributed significantly to our ability to compete against dumped and 
subsidized imports, and only its continuation will allow us to remain 
in business. The packing facility in Coalinga includes a packing shed 
with numerous packing lines, cold rooms, a staging area, a loading 
dock, a scale, and a storage yard. Our investment in the facility 
exceeds $2.3 million and our annual budget exceeds $4.0 million. 
Without the amounts we have received under the CDSOA, maintaining these 
levels of investment would be more difficult.
    The costs to operate in foreign countries such as China (where 
workers are paid $1.00 per day) are substantially below domestic costs 
and do not compete fairly with U.S. companies. We are confident that 
Congress will actively support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by 
opposing repeal of the CDSOA and by supporting the U.S. government's 
sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by Congress by 
fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization.
    As you know, Congress has called for our trade negotiators in the 
ongoing Doha Round to push for revision of the WTO agreements so that 
the CDSOA and similar programs relating to individual countries' use of 
the AD/CVD duties they collect will be expressly accepted as WTO 
consistent. This is the better solution to the WTO dispute that is the 
basis for calls to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
    In conclusion, Vessey and Company, Inc. urges the Committee to 
delete H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.

                                 

                                                    WCI Steel, Inc.
                                                 Warren, Ohio 44483
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Shaw:

    We at WCI Steel, Inc., an integrated steelmaker employing 1,650 in 
Warren, Ohio, urge you to exclude H.R. 1121 from the miscellaneous 
tariff bill now being considered. We not only oppose the repeal of the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act by Congress, we believe any 
legislative action on CDSOA is inappropriate and would weaken the 
United States' standing in future trade talks.
    Our support for CDSOA stems from the painful truth that foreign 
governments continue to subsidize their steel industries and permit the 
unfair trade of goods into the United States, hurting American workers 
and companies. The distribution of unfair trade duties to these 
companies and workers is a necessary tool to ensure that anti-dumping 
and countervailing duty orders are effective.
    Please note that CDSOA has no application to legally traded 
imports. Thus, a repeal would only serve as a green light to foreign 
companies and government to continue--and increase--the dumping of 
illegally traded imports into the United States.
    Furthermore, CDSOA is not just a steel industry issue. In January, 
a group of U.S. CEOs representing workers in the agriculture, fishing, 
plastics and an array of manufacturing industries held a conference 
call with the White House to express support for CDSOA and urge the 
administration to negotiate a settlement on this issue with the World 
Trade Organization.
    We believe international negotiations are the appropriate avenue 
for resolving WTO issues with CDSOA. A Congressional repeal would take 
CDSOA off the table and give the United States less leverage in future 
trade negotiations.
    Again, we urge you to exclude H.R. 1121 from the tariff bill and 
allow the negotiation process to proceed. Please feel free to contact 
me with any questions.

                                                   Patrick G. Tatom
                                President & Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                   Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc.
                                              Galax, Virginia 24333
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., and its 496 employees 
strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be 
preserved to maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded 
imports. Congress should not treat its revocation as some sort of 
``technical correction.''
    Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., is headquartered in Galax, 
Virginia and operates a bedroom furniture manufacturing plant in Galax, 
VA., along with a Particleboard plant and Mirror plant which both serve 
as suppliers to the furniture manufacturing plant.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                Lee H. Houston, Jr.
                                                          President

                                                       Robert Kirby
                                   Vice President of Administration

                                                        John Mcghee
                                            Vice President of Sales

                                                    Barry Branscome
                                      Vice President of Engineering

                                 

                                   Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc.
                                              Galax, Virginia 24333
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to the Ways and Means Committee's July 25, 2005 Press 
Release, Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., and its 496 employees 
strongly oppose H.R. 1121 and its inclusion in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (``CDSOA'') must be 
preserved to maintain effective remedies against unfairly traded 
imports. Congress should not treat its revocation as some sort of 
``technical correction.''
    Webb Furniture Enterprises, Inc., is headquartered in Galax, 
Virginia and operates a bedroom furniture manufacturing plant in Galax, 
VA., along with a Particleboard plant and Mirror plant which both serve 
as suppliers to the furniture manufacturing plant.
    Unfairly priced imports from China contributed to the closing of 
over 65 U.S. wooden bedroom furniture factories during 2001-2004. These 
factories employed over 18,000 workers. Our industry's antidumping 
petition was opposed by over 30 law firms that represented the Chinese 
Government and over 100 Chinese companies. The Chinese Government even 
helped pay the legal fees of the Chinese companies. In 2004, we won our 
case, and the United States imposed antidumping duties to offset the 
dumped prices. Despite the antidumping order, however, we fear that 
some Chinese furniture exporters are continuing to dump their product 
in the United States at very low prices. They simply absorb the duties 
rather than adjust their prices to non-injurious levels as the law was 
intended
    We need CDSOA to ensure that our antidumping order has its intended 
effect. CDSOA discourages foreign exporters from continuing to dump, 
because they know that their U.S. competitors are the ones that receive 
the duties they pay. In addition, if foreign producers choose to 
continue to dump, then CDSOA compensates the companies that are hurt by 
the continuing unfair trade practices. CDSOA distributions will enable 
our company to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    One of the criticisms leveled at CDSOA is that it encourages the 
filing of frivolous petitions. This is completely untrue. CDSOA was 
certainly not the reason that our industry filed its antidumping 
petition. In fact, we understand that the number of cases filed has 
gone down considerably since CDSOA was enacted.
    Finally, Congress should not consider repealing CDSOA at a time 
when negotiators in Geneva are considering a U.S. proposal to amend the 
WTO Antidumping Agreement to clarify that CDSOA is WTO-consistent. In 
January 2004, Congress directed the Administration to negotiate a 
solution to this issue in the Doha Round. Congress should not change 
course while the WTO negotiations are still pending. Instead, your 
Committee should urge Ambassador Portman to resolve this controversial 
issue in the Doha Round.
    Thank you for considering our comments.
                                                        John McGhee
                                            Vice President of Sales

                                                    Barry Branscome
                                      Vice President of Engineering

                                 

                                                      Wellman, Inc.
                                    Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman,
House Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the more than 1900 employees of Wellman, Inc., the 
largest manufacturer of polyester staple fiber in the United States, 
with plants located in South Carolina and Mississippi, I wish to 
express our strong opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill (``MTB'') calling for the repeal of the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''), also known as the Byrd 
Amendment. In addition, I am also strongly opposed to H.R. 2473 (also 
contained in the MTB), which alters the calculation of the ``all 
other'' rate in AD/CVD cases, which would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    CDSOA distributes dumping and countervailing duties finally 
assessed to U.S. manufacturers harmed by dumped and subsidized imports. 
Repealing or modifying this law would be catastrophic for U.S. 
manufacturers in general and polyester staple fiber producers in 
particular. This law was enacted as a remedy for industries grievously 
injured by unfair trade, such as the U.S. polyester staple fiber 
industry. We should be strengthening our laws against unfair trade, not 
abandoning them.
    I expect that Congress will actively support manufacturing jobs in 
the U.S. by opposing repeal of the CDSOA and by supporting the U.S. 
government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by 
Congress by fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization.
    I urge you to vote against any effort to repeal or modify the 
CDSOA.

                                                     Thomas M. Duff
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                               Wieland Metals, Inc.
                                           Wheeling, Illinois 60090
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    Thank you for providing an opportunity for public comment on the 
various technical corrections and miscellaneous trade bills pending 
before the Trade Subcommittee. On behalf of Wieland Metals, Inc., we 
urge the subcommittee to include HR 1121 in any miscellaneous trade 
bill. HR 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(CDSOA), enacted in 2000, through which assessed antidumping and 
countervailing duties that previously provided general Treasury 
revenues were instead paid to individual U.S. domestic producers that 
had supported the imposition of such duties.
    Wieland Metals produces copper and copper alloy (including brass) 
strip, and enhanced-surface copper tubing with some 100 employees in 
Wheeling, Illinois. We obtain our brass inputs both from domestic U.S. 
producers and through imports from our parent company in Germany, 
Wieland-Werke AG. Since 1987, imports of certain brass sheet and strip 
from Germany have been subject to antidumping duties, which duties now 
are being paid to other domestic producers of brass sheet and strip.
    We support the repeal of the CDSOA by inclusion of HR 1121 into a 
miscellaneous trade bill, or otherwise, for the following reasons:

    1.  The World Trade Organization has ruled that the CDSOA violates 
U.S. obligations under various WTO Agreements, including the 
Antidumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures. The time period within which the U.S. was obligated to come 
into compliance has expired, yet the U.S. has not done so. By failing 
to act upon the WTO ruling, the U.S. undermines its credibility on 
international trade issues generally and WTO disputes more 
specifically. The U.S. also has subjected its own manufacturers to 
retaliation abroad.
    2.  The CDSOA provides an unfair, double remedy to our U.S. 
domestic competitors. We must pay antidumping duties for our imports 
from Germany, which duties themselves are designed to level the 
``playing field'' and remedy in full any unfair trade practice. By then 
turning these funds over to our competitors, the U.S. provides them 
with an additional subsidy, tilting the ``playing field'' to their 
advantage.
    3.  The CDSOA was enacted without consideration by appropriate 
committees of Congress, and without the opportunity for public comment. 
It was not thoroughly considered, and has resulted in distortions among 
eligible and non-eligible U.S. producers in several cases. Benefits are 
awarded not based on harm or need but solely based on whether or not a 
domestic producer checked off a box indicating it supported the 
imposition of duties, which it may not have done for any number of 
reasons. There are documented cases of individual domestic producers 
being denied benefits, and thus being placed at a competitive 
disadvantage, due to mere oversight or other reasons having nothing to 
do with the ostensible purposes of the program. Two such cases are the 
subject of pending lawsuits in the Court of International Trade. See PS 
Chez Sidney v. USITC, Court No. 02-00635; Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United 
States, Court No. 03-00286.
    4.  The CDSOA likely violates the First Amendment. Eligibility for 
benefits is impermissibly tied to the position taken by a domestic 
producer on a public policy issue before a government agency, the U.S. 
International Trade Commission (``ITC''). Indeed, the CDSOA also likely 
skews the information obtained by the ITC, as domestic producers that 
may have independent reasons for not supporting the imposition of 
antidumping or countervailing duties no longer communicate those views 
for fear of losing out on a share of the duties should they ultimately 
be imposed.
    5.  Repeal of the CDSOA not only would have no cost, but also it 
would result in additional revenue for the U.S. Treasury.

    Thank you for your consideration.
            Yours sincerely,
                                                     Markus Schuler
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                Will & Baumer, Inc.
                                            Syracuse New York 13221
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In response to your July 25, 2005 Press Release, I am writing on 
behalf of Will & Baumer, Inc. and its 45 employees to express our 
strong opposition to the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the Technical 
Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. 
H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(``CDSOA''). The bill is highly controversial. It cannot be fairly 
described as a ``technical correction'' to existing law.
    I would like to provide information regarding the anti-dumping 
situation with Chinese candles, and give you what background we have as 
to its impact on our company and the candle industry.
    Beginning in the early to late sixties and early seventies, Will & 
Baumer lost a significant volume of consumer related candle sales to 
foreign imports. After struggling to compete with this influx, Will & 
Baumer finally got out of the consumer candle business. Then in the 
eighties we began to lose a significant volume of candle sales in our 
foodservice and florist segments of the market due to the Chinese 
candles that were making their way into the country at less cost than 
we could even buy the paraffin for.
    Will & Baumer has lost millions of dollars of volume due to these 
factors and went from being an employer of approximately 400 people 
down to an employer that now has about 45 people.
    We have only been able to remain in business due to our quality 
church candle line of business. Without the anti-dumping laws and the 
Byrd amendment, we expect that the same would happen in our religious 
market.
    We feel that the CDSOA program and the Byrd amendment overall are 
an excellent way to help preserve a long standing U.S. industry. 
Without these programs the decline in this industry would have been 
much more severe possibly even eliminating U.S. production altogether.
                                                Marshall J. Ciccone
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                     WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle
                                                    Berlin, Germany
                                                    August 26, 2005
Trade Subcommittee to the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Sir,

    WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle (WVM; German Association of Non 
Ferrous Metals Industry) represents the interests of producers and 
fabricators of non ferrous metals such as aluminium, copper and copper 
alloys (including brass), zinc, lead, nickel, magnesium, precious 
metals and rare metals towards government and the public.
    About 650 companies realize a turn over of about 29 billion Euro 
per year, with 110.000 employees.
    We wish to put forward our comments on behalf of, for example, our 
member company Wieland-Werke AG.
    We support the repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act 
(Byrd Amendment) by inclusion of the bill H.R 1121 into a miscellaneous 
trade bill

    because:
    The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit to global companies like 
Wieland-Werke AG:

      They are forced to pay the anti-dumping duties to create 
fair competition, in the sense of U.S. Antidumping Legislation.
      As soon as fair competition is created by paying anti-
dumping duties, it is newly abolished by paying subsidies to those 
American companies which earlier could have been affected by unfair 
trade practises.

    By doing so, the efforts of the U.S. trade authorities to create 
fair competition between

      foreign competitors
      home industries

    are changed to the contrary.
    The World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the Byrd Amendment 
violates WTO agreements and distorts trade yet the U.S. has ignored 
this ruling.
    We rely on open trade for the export sales of our member companies. 
The Byrd Amendment makes exporting brass sheet and strip for U.S. 
consuming industries more difficult and risky.
    Allocation of Byrd Amendment money gives a benefit in form of a 
subsidy to those U.S. companies which are competitors of Wieland-Werke 
AG. By that competition is seriously distorted.
    We support all efforts to create a world trade free of barriers, on 
the basis of reciprocity and in accordance with the principals of the 
WTO which are acknowledged by the most important world trade 
participants.
    Furthermore we fully associate us with the comments which will be 
submitted on behalf of the European Union.
                                                Hans-Reiner Haubler

                                                      Wilfried Held

                                 

                                      Wood Truss Council of America
                                           Madison, Wisconsin 53719
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    The ``Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,'' often 
called the ``Byrd Amendment,'' allows for the distribution of CVD/AD 
deposits to affected U.S. producers who originally petition for trade 
remedies that result in the imposition of such duties. On behalf of the 
Wood Truss Council of America (WTCA), we are writing in support of H.R. 
1121, and a repeal of this ``Byrd Amendment.''
    Established in 1983, WTCA is a national not-for-profit trade 
association currently representing the interests of 964 wood truss and 
wall panel manufacturer and structural component distributor members 
across the United States. Its growing membership also includes a broad 
range of interests within the structural building component industry: 
truss plate and original equipment manufacturers, computer engineering 
and service companies, lumber mills, inspection bureaus, lumber brokers 
and distributors.
    Structural building components, in general, provide building 
designers and homeowners the ability to realize their most ambitious 
concepts, no matter how complicated or extraordinary their structure 
may be. This industry designs, manufactures, sells and delivers the 
structural elements that frame many homes and commercial buildings such 
as roof and floor trusses, wall panels, I-joists, engineered wood 
beams, plywood and oriented strand board (OSB).
    Since the 1950s, when the modern metal plate connected wood truss 
(known more simply as a ``truss'') was first manufactured, its use in 
single-family and multi-family roof construction has increased. 
According to the National Association of Home Builders' Research 
Center, trusses account for more than 60% market share for residential 
roof construction nationwide. This is primarily because using trusses 
results in overall cost savings and increased construction speed, 
provides for greater design flexibility, and builds a stronger roof.
    According to recent financial performance surveys of the industry, 
today there are over 2,460 structural building component manufacturing 
locations in the U.S., which annually manufacture and distribute more 
than $11 billion in products, and employ over 109,700 individuals. This 
industry touches each individual and local economy in many ways, as it 
helps to create strong, high-quality, cost-effective buildings, while 
providing numerous employment opportunities.
    According to the International Trade Commission (ITC), 36% of the 
softwood lumber used in the U.S. comes from Canada. Based on recent 
industry financial performance statistics, combined with a study done 
by the ITC, the structural building component industry's annual steel 
purchases are approximately 475,000 tons of steel in truss plates and 
an additional 130,000 tons in connectors.
    Hence, our manufacturers' competitiveness and profitability are 
directly harmed by the protectionist trade remedies encouraged and 
exacerbated through the Byrd Amendment. Please allow me to offer the 
following observations:
Byrd Creates Perverse Incentive:
    The Byrd Amendment is bad policy because it essentially creates a 
double benefit for targeted companies: first, through an increase in 
prices due to a tariff-induced reduced supply; and second, through the 
distribution of tariff dollars to the petitioning companies that 
already gain the benefit from the increase in prices.
    As a consequence, the Byrd Amendment has simply encouraged 
additional U.S. companies to file more protectionist trade suits to 
reap the benefits of a direct payment from their marketplace 
competitors.
Byrd Encourages Protectionist Trade:
    According to the World Trade Organization, as recently as 1997 only 
15 anti-dumping cases were filed in the U.S., and only nine in the 
entire first half of 2000. But since the Byrd Amendment took effect, 
the numbers have climbed to 76 in 2001, 35 in 2002, and 37 in 2003.
    Forty-four U.S. companies have each collected at least $1 million 
through the Byrd Amendment in 2004, and total assessed duties were over 
$284.1 million. From 2001 through 2004, U.S. Companies have benefited 
from more than $1.04 billion through this protectionist trade law.
Byrd Makes My Problems Worse:
    First, as stated earlier, the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing 
of CVD/AD trade remedy cases. These trade tariffs artificially raise 
the cost of my raw materials, like softwood lumber and steel, which 
also leads to unnecessary uncertainty or restriction of supply.
    Second, the Byrd Amendment makes it possible for nearly $4 billion 
in CVD/AD duties collected on the importation of Canadian softwood 
lumber to be distributed to U.S. petitioning companies. However, U.S. 
petitioning companies account for only 54 percent of U.S. softwood 
lumber production. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
these petitioning companies.
    Third, the possibility of distribution created by the Byrd 
Amendment of this nearly $4 billion in CVD/AD duties makes a negotiated 
settlement of the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada 
nearly impossible.
Byrd Unfair, Passed Unfairly:
    The Byrd Amendment was passed as an add-on to a last minute 
appropriations bill, without consideration by the appropriate 
committees of Congress/
    The Byrd Amendment creates harm to consuming industries like mine, 
and yet I have no ability to participate meaningfully in the trade 
cases the Byrd Amendment encourages. Repeal of the Byrd Amendment is an 
essential step in allowing consuming industries an opportunity to 
protect our trade interests.
    Byrd Harms International Trade:
    The WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal two years ago, and in 
November 2004 it gave formal approval for Canada, Japan, the EU and 
four other jurisdictions to retaliate against the U.S. for refusing to 
amend or rescind the Byrd Amendment.
    In March 2005, the Canadian government announced it would impose a 
punitive 15 percent duty, equaling $11.6 million annually, on targeted 
goods including oysters, live swine, specialty fish and cigarettes 
imported from the U.S. The EU announced similar punitive tariffs as 
well on paper, agricultural, textile and machinery products imported 
from the U.S.
    Thank you for allowing us to provide the subcommittee WTCA's views 
on H.R. 1121, please feel free to contact either of us if you have any 
questions or need for further information.
                                                       Kendall Hoyd
                                                          President

                                                    Sean D. Shields
                            Legislative & Political Affairs Manager

                                 

                                             Johnson Controls, Inc.
                                           Plymouth, Michigan 48170
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee of House Ways and Means Committee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    On behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc. (``JCI''), I am writing in 
response to Notice, TR-3, ``Shaw Announces Request for Written Comments 
on Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills,'' (July 25, 2005). JCI supports H.R. 1202, A bill to 
suspend temporarily the duty on unidirectional (cardioid) electret 
condenser microphone modules for use in motor vehicles. H.R. 1202 was 
introduced by Cong. Ryan and has broad support. The following Members 
are co-sponsors: Representatives Bob Beauprez, Mark Green, Sander M. 
Levin, Donald Manzullo, Thaddeus G. McCotter, John Conyers, Jr., Ron 
Kind, Ron Lewis and Ed Whitfield.
    JCI imports microphones as described in the legislation for use in 
its automotive interior manufacturing operations. JCI is very familiar 
with this product and does not believe any U.S. company produces these 
microphones. Therefore, JCI does not expect that the bill would be 
controversial. JCI expects the revenue impact of the legislation to be 
small: the volume of JCI imports of the microphones is under $500,000 
per year. JCI notes that the product description is extremely narrow, 
which should make the duty suspension administrable.
    Passage of H.R. 1202 would be in the public interest because it 
would have a positive impact on U.S. manufacturing. The automotive 
industry is under severe pressure from foreign competition. By reducing 
the cost for an input, the bill would increase the competitiveness of 
U.S. manufacturing operations using the input. This, in turn, would 
help make U.S. manufacturing operations more competitive compared to 
foreign operations (that do not pay these input duties). While the 
legislation's impact is small, every measure that supports U.S. 
manufacturing is important to the U.S. automotive industry.
    We appreciate your consideration of this letter. If you have any 
questions, please let me know.
            Sincerely,
                                                  William J. Kohler

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments: AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
    *Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee's 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:

       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.

    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:

       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.

    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:

       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.

    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:

       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.

    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of duty 
        on certain filament yarns
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                                                   Kellwood Company
                                       Chesterfield, Missouri 63017
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of the Kellwood Company, we wish to advise you of our 
strong support for inclusion of H.R. 1230, introduced by Representative 
Blunt to be included in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
    The bill at issue, H.R. 1230, would grant duty-free treatment to 
certain tents with a sewn-in floor of a base size not to exceed 20' by 
20' and classified under 6306.22.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS). The request is being made, as these 
camping tents are unfairly disadvantaged vis-a-vis smaller backpacking 
tents that are classified under 6306.22.10 HTSUS and entered duty free. 
The purpose of these tents is essentially the same as the backpacking 
tents with the exception that they are larger to accommodate more 
people.
    Customs and Border Protection differentiates between backpacking 
tents and other camping tents using specific criteria with respect to 
size and dimensions, number of persons accommodated, and weight. 
Backpacking tents are duty free. Other camping tents are subjected to 
duties of 8.8%. This additional cost, of course, gets passed on to the 
American family that purchases these larger tents. This unfair tariff 
allocation needs to be remedied, thus the bill is intended to lower the 
tariffs only on these larger camping-style tents.
    It is not the objective of this bill to compete with or harm U.S. 
production in any fashion--Kellwood has been supplying camping goods to 
adventurers and backyard campers for over 100 years, and this bill 
covers only items that are no longer produced in the U.S. The effect 
would be to level the tariff application for camping tents whether they 
sleep one person or a family. We remain available for additional 
comment should you wish to contact us. Please feel free to call me at 
314-576-3263 or Nicole Bivens Collinson, of Sandler, Travis & 
Rosenberg, at 202-216-9307 if you have any questions.
            Sincerely,
                                               Wendy Wieland Martin
                                                     Vice President
                                       International Trade Services

                                 

                                             Solvay Chemicals, Inc.
                                               Houston, Texas 77098
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to comment in favor of HR 1274, providing for the 
temporary suspension of duties on amyl-anthraquinone. Operating from 
our plants in Longview, Washington and La Porte, Texas, Solvay 
Chemicals uses a unique patented production process to produce hydogen 
peroxide that uses less energy and has a higher yield. Solvay 
Chemicals' production technique depends on a feedstock Amyl-
anthraquinone (AQ) produced in Belgium. This import pays a 6.5 or 5.5 
percent ad valorem duty rate, depending on whether it is imported in a 
pure form or in solution.
    The reduction in costs provided by this duty suspension will help 
our Washington and Texas plants remain competitive in the U.S. market.
    If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to 
contact me.
    We appreciate very much this opportunity to comment, and thank you 
for your consideration.
                                                   Richard L. Hogan
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                        Cymer, Inc.
                                        San Diego, California 92127
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Cymer Inc. of San Diego strongly supports H.R. 1336, a bill to 
clarify the tariff classification of light sources for semiconductor 
photolithography.
    Cymer is the world's leading supplier of deep ultraviolet (DUV) 
illumination sources, the essential light source for DUV semiconductor 
photolithography systems. DUV lithography is a key enabling technology, 
which has allowed the semiconductor industry to meet the exacting 
specifications and manufacturing requirements for volume production of 
today's advanced semiconductor chips. Cymer is based in San Diego where 
we design and manufacture our light sources for export around the 
world.
    Virtually every late generation consumer electronic device--whether 
a PC or laptop, cellular phone, pager, PDA, internet server, modem, 
appliance or automobile--contains a semiconductor manufactured using a 
Cymer light source. Today's advanced devices require smaller, faster 
chips with increased power and functionality, and the chipmakers turn 
to Cymer to provide the light source critical to producing these chips.
    Cymer supplies light sources to all DUV lithography tool suppliers: 
ASM Lithography (ASML), Canon and Nikon. These companies in turn supply 
their tools to chipmakers. More than 80 chipmakers around the world use 
Cymer light sources in production.
    The Information Technology Trade Agreement of 1996 (``ITA'') 
eliminated customs duties on semiconductor manufacturing equipment, 
including photolithography equipment for semiconductor manufacturing. 
There has been inconsistent tariff treatment of light sources in some 
countries, however, resulting in this equipment being treated as duty 
free under the ITA in some countries, but not in others. Enactment of 
this bill will assist U.S. Government negotiators as they seek uniform 
tariff treatment from other signatories to the ITA. (Korea Customs, for 
example, assesses duty on our products as generic ``lasers'', while UK 
Customs agrees that they are semiconductor lithography equipment.)
    We have received outstanding support from the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce in our attempts to 
resolve our issue in Korea. H.R. 1336 will clarify the intent of the 
tariff provision covering semiconductor photolithography equipment, and 
will allow the United States Government to speak with greater authority 
in future negotiations.
                                                   Albert P. Cefalo
                                  Sr. V.P. of Intellectual Property

                                 

                                                               SEMI
                                               Washington, DC 20005
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International 
(SEMI), I am writing in support of H.R. 1336, a bill intended to 
clarify the customs tariff classification of laser light sources which 
are components of photolithography semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment. We ask that you include this provision in a miscellaneous 
tariff bill.
    SEMI represents nearly 1,000 U.S. companies in the $65 billion 
worldwide semiconductor equipment and materials industries. These 
industries supply the enabling technologies, including raw materials 
and advanced tools, to produce every semiconductor-based product.
    H.R. 1336 was introduced by Rep. Duke Cunningham and is intended to 
clarify the tariff classification of laser light sources for 
semiconductor photolithography manufactured in San Diego by Cymer, 
Inc., a SEMI member company. This equipment is crucial to the 
manufacture of most semiconductor products such as microprocessors and 
memory components.
    The Information Technology Trade Agreement of 1996 (``ITA'') 
eliminated customs duties on semiconductor manufacturing equipment, 
including photolithography equipment for semiconductor manufacturing. 
There has been inconsistent tariff treatment of laser light sources in 
some countries, resulting in this equipment being treated as duty free 
under the ITA in some countries but not in others. Enactment of this 
tariff clarification will assist U.S. Government negotiators as they 
seek uniform treatment under the ITA.
    SEMI supports passage of this bill as consistent with the ITA and 
the interests of our industry. Please contact me at 202-289-0440 if you 
have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
                                                     Maggie Hershey
                                            Director, Public Policy

                                 

      Statement of Paul C. Rosenthal, Wire Rod Producers Coalition
    The Wire Rod Producers Coalition, domestic producers of carbon and 
alloy steel wire rod (``CASWR''), strongly opposes efforts to 
legislatively exclude grade ER70S-6 (``S-6'') wire rods from the scope 
of any antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CASWR. The Wire 
Rod Producers Coalition includes ISG Georgetown Inc., of Georgetown, 
South Carolina; Keystone Consolidated Industries of Peoria, Illinois 
and Dallas, Texas; and Gerdau Ameristeel, with facilities in Florida, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Texas and Tennessee. This bill, 
H.R. 1407, was introduced by Representative LaTourette (R-OH), 
apparently at the request of Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., of 
Cleveland, Ohio.
    The domestic CASWR industry strongly opposes the bill or its 
inclusion in any miscellaneous tariff legislation. Any attempt to 
legislatively exclude certain products from antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders is by its very nature controversial because 
imports of such products have been found to contribute to the material 
injury of the domestic industry producing them. In this case, the 
Department of Commerce, the agency with expertise in such matters, has 
already administratively determined that an exclusion for S-6 was not 
warranted on existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The 
proposed legislation goes even farther, however, preventing the 
application of antidumping or countervailing duties that may be applied 
in any future cases, regardless of the ability of the domestic industry 
to produce the product or of the level of dumping or subsidization or 
material injury caused by such imports. Such a broad exclusion from 
antidumping duty and countervailing duty laws should not be the subject 
of legislation, much less miscellaneous tariff legislation.
BACKGROUND
    On August 31, 2001, members of the Wire Rod Producers Coalition 
filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions against a unfairly 
traded CASWR from a number of countries. The United States 
International Trade Commission found that the domestic wire rod 
industry was being materially injured by dumped and subsidized imports 
from various countries. In late 2002, antidumping duty orders were 
entered against dumped CASWR from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. Countervailing duty 
orders were entered against CASWR from Brazil and Canada. The 
countervailing duty order against Canada was later withdrawn.
    The Department of Commerce has administrative procedures for 
considering amendments to the scope of antidumping and countervailing 
duty orders. During the course of the antidumping and countervailing 
duty investigations on CASWR, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., of 
Cleveland, Ohio, requested that the Commerce Department exclude from 
the scope of the investigations certain wire rods made to the American 
Welding Society ER70S-6 classification. The domestic industry objected 
to this request on the grounds that it can and does produce this 
product and, on August 30, 2002, Commerce found that an exclusion for 
this product was not warranted. See, e.g., Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Brazil, 67 Fed. Reg. 55,805 (August 30, 2002).
    Having failed to obtain exclusion of ER70S-6 through the 
administrative process available to it, Lincoln Electric has several 
time sought a legislative solution to permit it to import dumped and 
subsidized ER70S-6. For example, on September 19, 2002, Senator 
Voinovich (R-OH) introduced on Lincoln Electric's behalf S. 2981, a 
bill that would have excluded ER70S-6 from the scope of any AD/CVD 
orders that were the result of the domestic industry's petitions. That 
bill was referred to the Committee on Finance, where no action was 
taken.
    On February 26, 2003, Mr. Voinovich reintroduced the same bill as 
S.456, which was referred to the Committee on Finance. Lincoln Electric 
indicated its desire to have this bill attached to the Senate version 
of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003 or 
some other appropriate vehicle. The domestic industry opposed the 
exclusion request, and it was not attached to any legislation in 2003
    During 2003, the domestic industry produced ER70S-6 for other 
customers and successfully produced this product to Lincoln Electric's 
specification. ISG Georgetown's mill was closed between November 2003 
and August 2004, during which period it was bought out of bankruptcy by 
ISG. Production of wire rod began again on ISG Georgetown's mill in 
August 2004, and ISG Georgetown has since produced other welding rod 
products for Lincoln Electric.
    Gerdau Ameristeel's Beaumont, Texas, facility has the ability to 
produce this product on its existing equipment using purchased billets 
on a mill that was recently upgraded in a manner to permit enhanced 
production of welding wire rods. In 2003, Lincoln suspended efforts to 
produce trials of S-6 material at this mill when it was owned by North 
Star Steel on the basis of price. While some domestic customers have 
chosen to purchase domestic ER70S-6, Lincoln Electric has to date 
instead continued to import its requirements of ER70S-6 from countries 
subject to the antidumping duty orders.
REASONS FOR DOMESTIC INDUSTRY OPPOSITION TO THE EXCLUSION
    The domestic wire rod industry strongly opposes any such 
legislative exclusion to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders 
because Lincoln Electric has already sought and been denied an 
exclusion for this product by the Commerce Department, the agency with 
the authority and expertise to evaluate such requests. The proper place 
for determining exclusions should be with the agencies that enforce the 
trade laws.
    The Commerce Department has an administrative procedure known as a 
``changed circumstance review'' that would permit purchasers to seek an 
administrative exclusion to the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders if the facts have changed since the denial of the exclusion. To 
grant a legislative exclusion would undermine the administrative 
process and lead to other attempts to weaken these antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders by legislatively excluding other products 
that the domestic industry can produce. In addition, the proposed 
legislation seeks to prevent the application of antidumping and 
countervailing duties in any future cases regardless of the facts. Such 
a broad and indiscriminate exclusion cannot be justified.
    An exclusion for ER70S-6 will undermine the intended relief to the 
domestic CASWR industry that the existing antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders are providing and permit unfairly traded 
imports to enter the United States, unencumbered by the discipline of 
the orders. Prior to the antidumping orders, the domestic industry had 
undergone five straight years of operating losses and a raft of plant 
closure and bankruptcies caused by unfairly traded imports. Absent 
these orders, the condition of the domestic industry would have 
continued to decline, particularly in the difficult economy 
characterized today by increasing costs.
    This bills would also provide a permanent exemption from any future 
antidumping or countervailing duty order against S-6 from any country. 
The application of the exclusion to future cases will hinder the 
domestic CASWR industry's ability to seek relief from unfairly traded 
and injurious imports of CASWR in the future. This would be an 
unprecedented step that would undermine the trade laws by preventing 
application of those laws where it is demonstrated that such imports 
are unfairly traded and causing material injury to the domestic 
industry. Such a law would also undermine the authority of the United 
States International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department, as 
well as impair the rights of the domestic wire rod industry. There is 
no need to grant relief against antidumping or countervailing duty 
orders that do not yet exist. All such relief must be viewed on a case 
by case basis and should not be granted as a prophylactic measure. 
Indeed, the prohibition on future duties in the bill may also violate 
Article 14 of the WTO Antidumping Code by impairing the rights of third 
countries to bring antidumping suits against imported S-6 in the United 
States.
    ER70S-6 is a product that can be and is produced domestically. 
Using current equipment and production techniques, domestic producers 
believe that they can produce S-6 to meet the mechanical and chemical 
requirements set by Lincoln. It is not necessary to employ the 
processes stated in the bill to meet the technical requirements for S-6 
wire rod, and such processes are designated for the sole purpose of 
precluding domestic producers from this business.
    In addition to ISG Georgetown and Gerdau Ameristeel, Rocky Mountain 
Steel, Commercial Metals Corp., Republic Technologies and Charter Steel 
are also believed to be able to produce these products. To grant the 
legislative exclusion proposed will undermine the efforts of domestic 
producers to produce and market this product and will undercut the 
capital investments that have been made and are being made by the 
domestic industry to produce this and other CASWR products. A 
legislative exclusion will remove any incentive for Lincoln Electric 
and other purchasers to develop domestic suppliers for this product. 
The other major consumers of S-6 are Hobart (an ITW company), ESAB (a 
division of a Swedish company located in Ashtabulah Ohio) and National 
Standard, located in Niles, MI and Stillwater, OK. These producers of 
S-6 welding wire have purchased S-6 from domestic sources.
    Lincoln Electric and other consumers of S-6 are not precluded from 
purchasing imported ER70S-6 if an exclusion from the antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders is not granted. The antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders do not cover all import sources, nor do they 
create quotas. Purchasers have the choice of purchasing such products 
from domestic producers, from foreign producers not subject to the 
order, or from producers subject to the orders at fair market prices 
(i.e., with the payment of antidumping and/or countervailing duties).
    Exclusions to antidumping and countervailing duty orders should be 
addressed on a case-bay-case basis at the agencies that enforce those 
laws. This bill, and the undermining of the antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders on CASWR (and indeed on the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws themselves) that it will engender, is highly 
controversial and perhaps contrary to United States obligations under 
the WTO. It should not be the subject of a miscellaneous tariff bill.

                                 

    Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products 
                                                      Manufacturers
                                             Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                                  September 2, 2005
Chairman Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    As President of GTMA: The Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet 
and Consumer Product Manufacturers, I would like to express our 
association's strong support for the above bills, currently under 
review by your office.
    In the absence of a reliable source of quality acrylic fiber in 
this hemisphere, our member companies are forced to import these 
materials from producers in Turkey and the United Kingdom. The duties 
incurred as a result of this forced importation are very significant 
and serve to adversely affect Georgia textile producers' 
competitiveness in the marketplace. With the textile industry already 
suffering severe market disruption, these additional costs cannot be 
passed along to consumers and therefore make further job losses likely.
    Georgia producers using acrylic fibers require shipments in 
sufficient quantity and quality to assure that production needs will be 
met. There is no longer a source who can meet these requirements 
without incurring tariffs. We therefore believe that the suspension of 
duty for acrylic fiber is appropriate and urge the United States 
International Trade Commission to give favorable consideration to these 
bills in an expedited manner.
    Thank you for your support of the American textile industry.

                                                     G.L. Bowen III

                                 

                                                      Coats & Clark
                                              Albany, Georgia 31705
                                                    August 12, 2005
House, Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536
Duty Suspension--Acrylic Fiber

Dear Committee Member:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of the company's reorganization plan. 
Solutia was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in 
the U.S. and its exit from the market is a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. Textile Industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable recommendation by the International Trade Commission on these 
bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of the request.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Audie McDearis
                                                  V.P. Supply Chain

                                 

                                 Culp Upholstery & Artee Industries
                                   Burlington, North Carolina 27215
                                                    August 22, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

To the Committee:

    Culp Inc. is one of the largest users of acrylic fiber in home 
furnishing and upholstery fabrics sold to a wide range of domestic and 
international customers. Our Artee Industries division is a large 
purchaser of acrylic staple fiber for the production of yarns used in 
these fabrics.
    With the closing of Solutia Incorporated of Decatur, Alabama, we 
have been forced to import the acrylic fiber to continue the operation 
of our yarn and fabric plants. At present there is only one domestic 
acrylic fiber producer, Sterling Fibers. Sterling does not have 
manufacturing capacity to supply the needs of the industry and does not 
offer the variety of gel dyed acrylic staple fiber colors to meet our 
specific requirements. In addition to our internal production, we are 
purchasing acrylic yarns from other domestic spinners who also are 
forced to purchase fiber off shore to meet their production needs.
    Certainly when there were several domestic acrylic fiber producers 
there was justification for duty protection. Today with only one 
domestic producer, who is unable to meet the needs of the market, 
duties on acrylic staple fibers hinders our ability to compete 
profitably in the market both here and abroad. We therefore request 
that these duties be removed.
    We will be glad to provide any additional information possible you 
request.

                                                 Robert G. Culp III
                                                           Chairman

                                                    Jerald S. Owens
                                 Vice President Product Development

                                 

                                            Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                  September 2, 2005

    This statement is submitted on behalf of Kaltex Fibers S.A. de C.V. 
(``Kaltex'') and Celulosa Y Derivados S.A. de C.V. (``Cydsa'') in 
connection with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding 
pending duty suspension bills. Kaltex and Cydsa wish to take this 
opportunity to register their opposition to three pending duty 
suspension bills covering acrylic fiber, which were introduced on April 
8 as H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Kaltex and Cydsa are major North American producers of the acrylic 
fiber covered by the subject duty suspension bills. The two companies 
are headquartered in Mexico, with Kaltex maintaining acrylic fiber 
manufacturing operations in Altamira, Tamaulipas since 1985 and Cydsa 
producing acrylic fiber in El Salto, Jalisco since 1967. Together with 
Sterling Fiber, Inc. of Pace, Florida, Kaltex and Cydsa are the 
principal North American manufacturers of acrylic fiber (Sterling also 
opposes H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536, as communicated to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission in a statement dated June 16, 2005).
    The bills of concern would suspend the U.S. most-favored-nation 
(MFN) rates of duty through December 31, 2008 for the three basic types 
of acrylic fiber as shown below:
    H.R. 1534: Acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers, not carded, combed, 
or otherwise processed for spinning (``top'') as provided for under HTS 
5503.30.00;
    H.R. 1535: Acrylic or modacrylic filament tow (``tow'') as provided 
for under HTS 5501.30.00; and
    H.R. 1536: Acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers, carded, combed, or 
otherwise processed for spinning (``staple'') as provided for under HTS 
5506.30.00.
    Kaltex and Cydsa oppose the requested duty suspensions because 
North American manufacturers, including Florida-based Sterling Fiber, 
have ample production capacity to satisfy U.S. demand for all types of 
acrylic fiber. Kaltex and Cydsa alone have an annual production 
capacity of 167,000 tons of acrylic tow, staple and top, with 107,000 
tons of that capacity available for exportation to the United States. 
Combined with Sterling Fiber's capacity in Pace, Florida, this capacity 
is more than sufficient to readily replace the output from Solutia, 
previously the largest U.S. producer of acrylic fiber, which recently 
closed its Decatur, Alabama production facility.
    A suspension of the MFN rates of duty on the subject categories of 
acrylic fiber, which range from 4.3 to 7.5 percent ad valorem, would 
have a major adverse impact on North American acrylic fiber producers 
by eliminating the tariff preference they have heretofore benefited 
from by virtue of their U.S.-based or NAFTA-eligible operations. 
Extending unilateral duty-free treatment to the world's largest 
producers of acrylic fiber, which are located primarily in the European 
Union and Japan, would seriously undermine the competitive position of 
North American suppliers.
    Finally, we note that the duty impact of H.R. 1534-1536 would 
exceed $5 million annually. This is well above the Ways & Means 
Committee's threshold of $500,000 in annual duties foregone per duty 
suspension bill.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Kaltex and Cydsa's views on 
the pending duty suspension bills with the Ways & Means Trade 
Subcommittee. Please feel free to contact us if the Subcommittee has 
any questions regarding our position on this matter.
                                                  Thomas J. Scanlon
                                                          President
                                                   Benchmarks, Inc.

                                 

                           National Council of Textile Organization
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of the National Council of Textile 
Organization's (NCTO) support of duty suspension legislation for 
acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties on acrylic fiber was 
introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 2005, and the bill 
numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of the company's reorganization plan. 
Solutia was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in 
the U.S. and its exit from the market is a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many U.S. textile companies will be unable to compete and will 
be forced to exit the market for product lines that utilize these 
fibers. If this happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers 
across the country will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
     Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Cass Johnson
                                                          President

                                 

                                        National Spinning Co., Inc.
                                   Washington, North Carolina 27889
                                                    August 12, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535, and H.R. 1536

To the Committee:

    National Spinning Co., Inc. is one of the largest, if not the 
largest, purchasers of acrylic tow and staple in the United States. 
These acrylic raw materials are used to produce yarns in our North 
Carolina spinning, dyeing, and packaging facilities employing 
approximately 1,000 people. Our products are sold to a diverse range of 
domestic and international customers.
    At present there is only one domestic acrylic fiber producer, 
Sterling Fibers. Sterling does not have adequate manufacturing capacity 
to supply the quantity nor the range of acrylic raw materials National 
Spinning requires to meet the needs of its customers. Therefore, since 
Solutia Incorporated of Decatur, Alabama filed for bankruptcy and 
subsequently closed its manufacturing facilities producing acrylic 
fibers, National has been forced to import acrylic raw materials to 
operate our plants and support market demand.
    Previously, there were several domestic acrylic raw material 
producers, therefore plausible justification for duty protection. With 
only one local producer today however, a producer unable to meet the 
needs of the local market, duties on imported acrylic tow and staple 
efface our competitiveness and profitability. It is for these reasons 
that we request that duties be removed.
    Among the products Sterling Fibers is unable to supply are dry 
spun, bi-component, acid-dyeable, and optically brightened fibers. In 
addition, Sterling indicates they are not in a position to offer 
National the volume of commodity fibers required to operate our plants.
    We would be happy to provide you with additional information or 
details as necessary.
    In conclusion, we urge you to lift the duties on acrylic tow, 
staple, and intermediate products immediately. This action will 
preserve U.S. jobs, boost our nation's competitiveness, and aid U.S. 
economic growth. Please feel free to contact me for any reason.
            Sincerely,
                                                     James Chesnutt
                                                      President/CEO

                                 

                                           Patrick Yarn Mills, Inc.
                               Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing to inform you of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005 and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    In January of this year Solutia Inc. closed it's USA acrylic fiber 
operations as part of the company's reorganization plan. Solutia was 
the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. and 
its exit from this market is a serious blow to the textile 
manufacturers in our country.
    In 2005, the U.S. usage of acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 
million pounds. The only other producer of acrylic fiber in this 
country is Sterling Fibers located in Pace, Florida with capabilities 
of producing only about 15% of this usage. Unfortunately, they are 
operating using mid 1950 era equipment with no modernization plans. 
Also, our facilities use modern open-end spinning equipment that 
requires fiber engineered for this process of which they are not able 
to produce.
    The U.S textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005 and increased unfair competition from China. It is imperative 
that the eight percent duty on acrylic fibers be lifted so we can 
compete within the market. If not, many plants and thousands of workers 
across the country will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly recommend a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to 
contact me if you have any questions or need additional information on 
this request.
                                                    Gilbert Patrick
                                                          President

                                 

                            Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River
                                    Fall River, Massachusetts 02721
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536. In 
addition, Congressman Barney Frank introduced H.R. 2591 to suspend 
duties on certain acrylic yarns, at our request, and passage of this 
additional bill is also very important to us.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of a broader reorganization plan. Solutia 
was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. 
and its exit from the market was a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Larry A. Liebenow
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

       Statement of Paul Saunders, Sterling Fibers, Pace, Florida

      Solutia, the largest U.S. producer of acrylic fiber, in 
January, 2005 announced a shutdown of its production in Decatur, AL, 
leaving Sterling Fibers, Inc. as the only American producer of acrylic 
fiber. We have 80 employees at our plant in Pace, FL.
      Sterling Fibers has a current capacity of 30 million lbs 
of annual production of acrylic fiber, with plans to expand to as much 
as 60 million lbs in the immediate future if demand warrants the 
necessary investment.
      Sterling can produce all the basic types of acrylic fiber 
needed in the American market. However, we face the same array of 
unfair international competition and trading practices that drove all 
of our domestic competition out of business. Assuming new U.S. trade 
policies do not add to the existing disadvantages we are confident 
about our ability to continue supplying the domestic market.
      The international market for acrylic fiber is laced with 
direct and indirect foreign government support for our competitors, 
including tariffs much higher than the U.S. levels and a myriad of 
other trade distorting practices that disadvantage our position. For 
example, China, the world's largest market for acrylic fiber, is an 
aggressive market manipulator, employing centralized fiber procurement 
strategies that regularly and significantly distort the global market.
      The 4.3% U.S. tariff on acrylic staple fiber is the 
lowest in any significant market in the world. Its unilateral 
suspension would be an unfair and unwarranted imposition on Sterling 
Fiber, completely exposing the American market we serve to foreign 
government-assisted competition without compensating reciprocity.
      Sterling Fibers currently sells our CFF acrylic fibers 
into India, China, Brazil, Korea, Japan and several European countries 
and pays a duty into all of them. The unilateral give-away of the U.S. 
tariff leaves us with no reciprocal tariff reduction by any of these 
countries.
      Accordingly, Sterling Fiber, Inc. requests withdrawal of 
the tariff suspension proposals that unfairly will disadvantage the 
only remaining viable U.S. production of acrylic fiber.
      NOTE: Sterling Fiber, Inc offers no objection to the 
temporary suspension of tariffs on modacrylic fiber. To the best of our 
knowledge, after Solutia's shutdown this product will no longer be 
produced in the U.S.

                                 

    Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products 
                                                      Manufacturers
                                             Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                                  September 2, 2005
Chairman Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    As President of GTMA: The Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet 
and Consumer Product Manufacturers, I would like to express our 
association's strong support for the above bills, currently under 
review by your office.
    In the absence of a reliable source of quality acrylic fiber in 
this hemisphere, our member companies are forced to import these 
materials from producers in Turkey and the United Kingdom. The duties 
incurred as a result of this forced importation are very significant 
and serve to adversely affect Georgia textile producers' 
competitiveness in the marketplace. With the textile industry already 
suffering severe market disruption, these additional costs cannot be 
passed along to consumers and therefore make further job losses likely.
    Georgia producers using acrylic fibers require shipments in 
sufficient quantity and quality to assure that production needs will be 
met. There is no longer a source who can meet these requirements 
without incurring tariffs. We therefore believe that the suspension of 
duty for acrylic fiber is appropriate and urge the United States 
International Trade Commission to give favorable consideration to these 
bills in an expedited manner.
    Thank you for your support of the American textile industry.
                                                     G.L. Bowen III

                                 

                                                      Coats & Clark
                                              Albany, Georgia 31705
                                                    August 12, 2005
House, Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536
Duty Suspension--Acrylic Fiber

Dear Committee Member:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of the company's reorganization plan. 
Solutia was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in 
the U.S. and its exit from the market is a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. Textile Industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable recommendation by the International Trade Commission on these 
bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of the request.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Audie McDearis
                                                  V.P. Supply Chain

                                 

                                 Culp Upholstery & Artee Industries
                                   Burlington, North Carolina 27215
                                                    August 22, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

To the Committee:

    Culp Inc. is one of the largest users of acrylic fiber in home 
furnishing and upholstery fabrics sold to a wide range of domestic and 
international customers. Our Artee Industries division is a large 
purchaser of acrylic staple fiber for the production of yarns used in 
these fabrics.
    With the closing of Solutia Incorporated of Decatur, Alabama, we 
have been forced to import the acrylic fiber to continue the operation 
of our yarn and fabric plants. At present there is only one domestic 
acrylic fiber producer, Sterling Fibers. Sterling does not have 
manufacturing capacity to supply the needs of the industry and does not 
offer the variety of gel dyed acrylic staple fiber colors to meet our 
specific requirements. In addition to our internal production, we are 
purchasing acrylic yarns from other domestic spinners who also are 
forced to purchase fiber off shore to meet their production needs.
    Certainly when there were several domestic acrylic fiber producers 
there was justification for duty protection. Today with only one 
domestic producer, who is unable to meet the needs of the market, 
duties on acrylic staple fibers hinders our ability to compete 
profitably in the market both here and abroad. We therefore request 
that these duties be removed.
    We will be glad to provide any additional information possible you 
request.

                                                 Robert G. Culp III
                                                           Chairman

                                                    Jerald S. Owens
                                 Vice President Product Development

                                 

                                            Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                  September 2, 2005

    This statement is submitted on behalf of Kaltex Fibers S.A. de C.V. 
(``Kaltex'') and Celulosa Y Derivados S.A. de C.V. (``Cydsa'') in 
connection with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding 
pending duty suspension bills. Kaltex and Cydsa wish to take this 
opportunity to register their opposition to three pending duty 
suspension bills covering acrylic fiber, which were introduced on April 
8 as H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Kaltex and Cydsa are major North American producers of the acrylic 
fiber covered by the subject duty suspension bills. The two companies 
are headquartered in Mexico, with Kaltex maintaining acrylic fiber 
manufacturing operations in Altamira, Tamaulipas since 1985 and Cydsa 
producing acrylic fiber in El Salto, Jalisco since 1967. Together with 
Sterling Fiber, Inc. of Pace, Florida, Kaltex and Cydsa are the 
principal North American manufacturers of acrylic fiber (Sterling also 
opposes H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536, as communicated to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission in a statement dated June 16, 2005).
    The bills of concern would suspend the U.S. most-favored-nation 
(MFN) rates of duty through December 31, 2008 for the three basic types 
of acrylic fiber as shown below:
    H.R. 1534: Acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers, not carded, combed, 
or otherwise processed for spinning (``top'') as provided for under HTS 
5503.30.00;
    H.R. 1535: Acrylic or modacrylic filament tow (``tow'') as provided 
for under HTS 5501.30.00; and
    H.R. 1536: Acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers, carded, combed, or 
otherwise processed for spinning (``staple'') as provided for under HTS 
5506.30.00.
    Kaltex and Cydsa oppose the requested duty suspensions because 
North American manufacturers, including Florida-based Sterling Fiber, 
have ample production capacity to satisfy U.S. demand for all types of 
acrylic fiber. Kaltex and Cydsa alone have an annual production 
capacity of 167,000 tons of acrylic tow, staple and top, with 107,000 
tons of that capacity available for exportation to the United States. 
Combined with Sterling Fiber's capacity in Pace, Florida, this capacity 
is more than sufficient to readily replace the output from Solutia, 
previously the largest U.S. producer of acrylic fiber, which recently 
closed its Decatur, Alabama production facility.
    A suspension of the MFN rates of duty on the subject categories of 
acrylic fiber, which range from 4.3 to 7.5 percent ad valorem, would 
have a major adverse impact on North American acrylic fiber producers 
by eliminating the tariff preference they have heretofore benefited 
from by virtue of their U.S.-based or NAFTA-eligible operations. 
Extending unilateral duty-free treatment to the world's largest 
producers of acrylic fiber, which are located primarily in the European 
Union and Japan, would seriously undermine the competitive position of 
North American suppliers.
    Finally, we note that the duty impact of H.R. 1534-1536 would 
exceed $5 million annually. This is well above the Ways & Means 
Committee's threshold of $500,000 in annual duties foregone per duty 
suspension bill.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Kaltex and Cydsa's views on 
the pending duty suspension bills with the Ways & Means Trade 
Subcommittee. Please feel free to contact us if the Subcommittee has 
any questions regarding our position on this matter.
                                                  Thomas J. Scanlon
                                                          President
                                                   Benchmarks, Inc.

                                 

                           National Council of Textile Organization
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of the National Council of Textile 
Organization's (NCTO) support of duty suspension legislation for 
acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties on acrylic fiber was 
introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 2005, and the bill 
numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of the company's reorganization plan. 
Solutia was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in 
the U.S. and its exit from the market is a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many U.S. textile companies will be unable to compete and will 
be forced to exit the market for product lines that utilize these 
fibers. If this happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers 
across the country will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
     Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Cass Johnson
                                                          President

                                 

                                        National Spinning Co., Inc.
                                   Washington, North Carolina 27889
                                                    August 12, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535, and H.R. 1536

To the Committee:

    National Spinning Co., Inc. is one of the largest, if not the 
largest, purchasers of acrylic tow and staple in the United States. 
These acrylic raw materials are used to produce yarns in our North 
Carolina spinning, dyeing, and packaging facilities employing 
approximately 1,000 people. Our products are sold to a diverse range of 
domestic and international customers.
    At present there is only one domestic acrylic fiber producer, 
Sterling Fibers. Sterling does not have adequate manufacturing capacity 
to supply the quantity nor the range of acrylic raw materials National 
Spinning requires to meet the needs of its customers. Therefore, since 
Solutia Incorporated of Decatur, Alabama filed for bankruptcy and 
subsequently closed its manufacturing facilities producing acrylic 
fibers, National has been forced to import acrylic raw materials to 
operate our plants and support market demand.
    Previously, there were several domestic acrylic raw material 
producers, therefore plausible justification for duty protection. With 
only one local producer today however, a producer unable to meet the 
needs of the local market, duties on imported acrylic tow and staple 
efface our competitiveness and profitability. It is for these reasons 
that we request that duties be removed.
    Among the products Sterling Fibers is unable to supply are dry 
spun, bi-component, acid-dyeable, and optically brightened fibers. In 
addition, Sterling indicates they are not in a position to offer 
National the volume of commodity fibers required to operate our plants.
    We would be happy to provide you with additional information or 
details as necessary.
    In conclusion, we urge you to lift the duties on acrylic tow, 
staple, and intermediate products immediately. This action will 
preserve U.S. jobs, boost our nation's competitiveness, and aid U.S. 
economic growth. Please feel free to contact me for any reason.
            Sincerely,
                                                     James Chesnutt
                                                      President/CEO

                                 

                                           Patrick Yarn Mills, Inc.
                               Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing to inform you of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005 and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    In January of this year Solutia Inc. closed it's USA acrylic fiber 
operations as part of the company's reorganization plan. Solutia was 
the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. and 
its exit from this market is a serious blow to the textile 
manufacturers in our country.
    In 2005, the U.S. usage of acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 
million pounds. The only other producer of acrylic fiber in this 
country is Sterling Fibers located in Pace, Florida with capabilities 
of producing only about 15% of this usage. Unfortunately, they are 
operating using mid 1950 era equipment with no modernization plans. 
Also, our facilities use modern open-end spinning equipment that 
requires fiber engineered for this process of which they are not able 
to produce.
    The U.S textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005 and increased unfair competition from China. It is imperative 
that the eight percent duty on acrylic fibers be lifted so we can 
compete within the market. If not, many plants and thousands of workers 
across the country will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly recommend a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to 
contact me if you have any questions or need additional information on 
this request.
                                                    Gilbert Patrick
                                                          President

                                 

                            Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River
                                    Fall River, Massachusetts 02721
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536. In 
addition, Congressman Barney Frank introduced H.R. 2591 to suspend 
duties on certain acrylic yarns, at our request, and passage of this 
additional bill is also very important to us.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of a broader reorganization plan. Solutia 
was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. 
and its exit from the market was a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Larry A. Liebenow
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

       Statement of Paul Saunders, Sterling Fibers, Pace, Florida

      Solutia, the largest U.S. producer of acrylic fiber, in 
January, 2005 announced a shutdown of its production in Decatur, AL, 
leaving Sterling Fibers, Inc. as the only American producer of acrylic 
fiber. We have 80 employees at our plant in Pace, FL.
      Sterling Fibers has a current capacity of 30 million lbs 
of annual production of acrylic fiber, with plans to expand to as much 
as 60 million lbs in the immediate future if demand warrants the 
necessary investment.
      Sterling can produce all the basic types of acrylic fiber 
needed in the American market. However, we face the same array of 
unfair international competition and trading practices that drove all 
of our domestic competition out of business. Assuming new U.S. trade 
policies do not add to the existing disadvantages we are confident 
about our ability to continue supplying the domestic market.
      The international market for acrylic fiber is laced with 
direct and indirect foreign government support for our competitors, 
including tariffs much higher than the U.S. levels and a myriad of 
other trade distorting practices that disadvantage our position. For 
example, China, the world's largest market for acrylic fiber, is an 
aggressive market manipulator, employing centralized fiber procurement 
strategies that regularly and significantly distort the global market.
      The 4.3% U.S. tariff on acrylic staple fiber is the 
lowest in any significant market in the world. Its unilateral 
suspension would be an unfair and unwarranted imposition on Sterling 
Fiber, completely exposing the American market we serve to foreign 
government-assisted competition without compensating reciprocity.
      Sterling Fibers currently sells our CFF acrylic fibers 
into India, China, Brazil, Korea, Japan and several European countries 
and pays a duty into all of them. The unilateral give-away of the U.S. 
tariff leaves us with no reciprocal tariff reduction by any of these 
countries.
      Accordingly, Sterling Fiber, Inc. requests withdrawal of 
the tariff suspension proposals that unfairly will disadvantage the 
only remaining viable U.S. production of acrylic fiber.
      NOTE: Sterling Fiber, Inc offers no objection to the 
temporary suspension of tariffs on modacrylic fiber. To the best of our 
knowledge, after Solutia's shutdown this product will no longer be 
produced in the U.S.

                                 

    Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet and Consumer Products 
                                                      Manufacturers
                                             Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                                  September 2, 2005
Chairman Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    As President of GTMA: The Association of Georgia's Textile, Carpet 
and Consumer Product Manufacturers, I would like to express our 
association's strong support for the above bills, currently under 
review by your office.
    In the absence of a reliable source of quality acrylic fiber in 
this hemisphere, our member companies are forced to import these 
materials from producers in Turkey and the United Kingdom. The duties 
incurred as a result of this forced importation are very significant 
and serve to adversely affect Georgia textile producers' 
competitiveness in the marketplace. With the textile industry already 
suffering severe market disruption, these additional costs cannot be 
passed along to consumers and therefore make further job losses likely.
    Georgia producers using acrylic fibers require shipments in 
sufficient quantity and quality to assure that production needs will be 
met. There is no longer a source who can meet these requirements 
without incurring tariffs. We therefore believe that the suspension of 
duty for acrylic fiber is appropriate and urge the United States 
International Trade Commission to give favorable consideration to these 
bills in an expedited manner.
    Thank you for your support of the American textile industry.
                                                     G.L. Bowen III

                                 

                                                      Coats & Clark
                                              Albany, Georgia 31705
                                                    August 12, 2005
House, Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536
Duty Suspension--Acrylic Fiber

Dear Committee Member:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of the company's reorganization plan. 
Solutia was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in 
the U.S. and its exit from the market is a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. Textile Industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable recommendation by the International Trade Commission on these 
bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of the request.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Audie McDearis
                                                  V.P. Supply Chain

                                 

                                 Culp Upholstery & Artee Industries
                                   Burlington, North Carolina 27215
                                                    August 22, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

To the Committee:

    Culp Inc. is one of the largest users of acrylic fiber in home 
furnishing and upholstery fabrics sold to a wide range of domestic and 
international customers. Our Artee Industries division is a large 
purchaser of acrylic staple fiber for the production of yarns used in 
these fabrics.
    With the closing of Solutia Incorporated of Decatur, Alabama, we 
have been forced to import the acrylic fiber to continue the operation 
of our yarn and fabric plants. At present there is only one domestic 
acrylic fiber producer, Sterling Fibers. Sterling does not have 
manufacturing capacity to supply the needs of the industry and does not 
offer the variety of gel dyed acrylic staple fiber colors to meet our 
specific requirements. In addition to our internal production, we are 
purchasing acrylic yarns from other domestic spinners who also are 
forced to purchase fiber off shore to meet their production needs.
    Certainly when there were several domestic acrylic fiber producers 
there was justification for duty protection. Today with only one 
domestic producer, who is unable to meet the needs of the market, 
duties on acrylic staple fibers hinders our ability to compete 
profitably in the market both here and abroad. We therefore request 
that these duties be removed.
    We will be glad to provide any additional information possible you 
request.

                                                 Robert G. Culp III
                                                           Chairman

                                                    Jerald S. Owens
                                 Vice President Product Development

                                 

                                            Kaltex Fibers and Cydsa
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                  September 2, 2005
    This statement is submitted on behalf of Kaltex Fibers S.A. de C.V. 
(``Kaltex'') and Celulosa Y Derivados S.A. de C.V. (``Cydsa'') in 
connection with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding 
pending duty suspension bills. Kaltex and Cydsa wish to take this 
opportunity to register their opposition to three pending duty 
suspension bills covering acrylic fiber, which were introduced on April 
8 as H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Kaltex and Cydsa are major North American producers of the acrylic 
fiber covered by the subject duty suspension bills. The two companies 
are headquartered in Mexico, with Kaltex maintaining acrylic fiber 
manufacturing operations in Altamira, Tamaulipas since 1985 and Cydsa 
producing acrylic fiber in El Salto, Jalisco since 1967. Together with 
Sterling Fiber, Inc. of Pace, Florida, Kaltex and Cydsa are the 
principal North American manufacturers of acrylic fiber (Sterling also 
opposes H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536, as communicated to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission in a statement dated June 16, 2005).
    The bills of concern would suspend the U.S. most-favored-nation 
(MFN) rates of duty through December 31, 2008 for the three basic types 
of acrylic fiber as shown below:
    H.R. 1534: Acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers, not carded, combed, 
or otherwise processed for spinning (``top'') as provided for under HTS 
5503.30.00;
    H.R. 1535: Acrylic or modacrylic filament tow (``tow'') as provided 
for under HTS 5501.30.00; and
    H.R. 1536: Acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers, carded, combed, or 
otherwise processed for spinning (``staple'') as provided for under HTS 
5506.30.00.
    Kaltex and Cydsa oppose the requested duty suspensions because 
North American manufacturers, including Florida-based Sterling Fiber, 
have ample production capacity to satisfy U.S. demand for all types of 
acrylic fiber. Kaltex and Cydsa alone have an annual production 
capacity of 167,000 tons of acrylic tow, staple and top, with 107,000 
tons of that capacity available for exportation to the United States. 
Combined with Sterling Fiber's capacity in Pace, Florida, this capacity 
is more than sufficient to readily replace the output from Solutia, 
previously the largest U.S. producer of acrylic fiber, which recently 
closed its Decatur, Alabama production facility.
    A suspension of the MFN rates of duty on the subject categories of 
acrylic fiber, which range from 4.3 to 7.5 percent ad valorem, would 
have a major adverse impact on North American acrylic fiber producers 
by eliminating the tariff preference they have heretofore benefited 
from by virtue of their U.S.-based or NAFTA-eligible operations. 
Extending unilateral duty-free treatment to the world's largest 
producers of acrylic fiber, which are located primarily in the European 
Union and Japan, would seriously undermine the competitive position of 
North American suppliers.
    Finally, we note that the duty impact of H.R. 1534-1536 would 
exceed $5 million annually. This is well above the Ways & Means 
Committee's threshold of $500,000 in annual duties foregone per duty 
suspension bill.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Kaltex and Cydsa's views on 
the pending duty suspension bills with the Ways & Means Trade 
Subcommittee. Please feel free to contact us if the Subcommittee has 
any questions regarding our position on this matter.
                                                  Thomas J. Scanlon
                                                          President
                                                   Benchmarks, Inc.

                                 

                           National Council of Textile Organization
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of the National Council of Textile 
Organization's (NCTO) support of duty suspension legislation for 
acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties on acrylic fiber was 
introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 2005, and the bill 
numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of the company's reorganization plan. 
Solutia was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in 
the U.S. and its exit from the market is a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many U.S. textile companies will be unable to compete and will 
be forced to exit the market for product lines that utilize these 
fibers. If this happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers 
across the country will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
     Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Cass Johnson
                                                          President

                                 

                                        National Spinning Co., Inc.
                                   Washington, North Carolina 27889
                                                    August 12, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Re: H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535, and H.R. 1536

To the Committee:

    National Spinning Co., Inc. is one of the largest, if not the 
largest, purchasers of acrylic tow and staple in the United States. 
These acrylic raw materials are used to produce yarns in our North 
Carolina spinning, dyeing, and packaging facilities employing 
approximately 1,000 people. Our products are sold to a diverse range of 
domestic and international customers.
    At present there is only one domestic acrylic fiber producer, 
Sterling Fibers. Sterling does not have adequate manufacturing capacity 
to supply the quantity nor the range of acrylic raw materials National 
Spinning requires to meet the needs of its customers. Therefore, since 
Solutia Incorporated of Decatur, Alabama filed for bankruptcy and 
subsequently closed its manufacturing facilities producing acrylic 
fibers, National has been forced to import acrylic raw materials to 
operate our plants and support market demand.
    Previously, there were several domestic acrylic raw material 
producers, therefore plausible justification for duty protection. With 
only one local producer today however, a producer unable to meet the 
needs of the local market, duties on imported acrylic tow and staple 
efface our competitiveness and profitability. It is for these reasons 
that we request that duties be removed.
    Among the products Sterling Fibers is unable to supply are dry 
spun, bi-component, acid-dyeable, and optically brightened fibers. In 
addition, Sterling indicates they are not in a position to offer 
National the volume of commodity fibers required to operate our plants.
    We would be happy to provide you with additional information or 
details as necessary.
    In conclusion, we urge you to lift the duties on acrylic tow, 
staple, and intermediate products immediately. This action will 
preserve U.S. jobs, boost our nation's competitiveness, and aid U.S. 
economic growth. Please feel free to contact me for any reason.
            Sincerely,
                                                     James Chesnutt
                                                      President/CEO

                                 

                                           Patrick Yarn Mills, Inc.
                               Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing to inform you of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005 and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536.
    In January of this year Solutia Inc. closed it's USA acrylic fiber 
operations as part of the company's reorganization plan. Solutia was 
the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. and 
its exit from this market is a serious blow to the textile 
manufacturers in our country.
    In 2005, the U.S. usage of acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 
million pounds. The only other producer of acrylic fiber in this 
country is Sterling Fibers located in Pace, Florida with capabilities 
of producing only about 15% of this usage. Unfortunately, they are 
operating using mid 1950 era equipment with no modernization plans. 
Also, our facilities use modern open-end spinning equipment that 
requires fiber engineered for this process of which they are not able 
to produce.
    The U.S textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005 and increased unfair competition from China. It is imperative 
that the eight percent duty on acrylic fibers be lifted so we can 
compete within the market. If not, many plants and thousands of workers 
across the country will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly recommend a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to 
contact me if you have any questions or need additional information on 
this request.
                                                    Gilbert Patrick
                                                          President

                                 

                            Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River
                                    Fall River, Massachusetts 02721
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536. In 
addition, Congressman Barney Frank introduced H.R. 2591 to suspend 
duties on certain acrylic yarns, at our request, and passage of this 
additional bill is also very important to us.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of a broader reorganization plan. Solutia 
was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. 
and its exit from the market was a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Larry A. Liebenow
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

       Statement of Paul Saunders, Sterling Fibers, Pace, Florida

      Solutia, the largest U.S. producer of acrylic fiber, in 
January, 2005 announced a shutdown of its production in Decatur, AL, 
leaving Sterling Fibers, Inc. as the only American producer of acrylic 
fiber. We have 80 employees at our plant in Pace, FL.
      Sterling Fibers has a current capacity of 30 million lbs 
of annual production of acrylic fiber, with plans to expand to as much 
as 60 million lbs in the immediate future if demand warrants the 
necessary investment.
      Sterling can produce all the basic types of acrylic fiber 
needed in the American market. However, we face the same array of 
unfair international competition and trading practices that drove all 
of our domestic competition out of business. Assuming new U.S. trade 
policies do not add to the existing disadvantages we are confident 
about our ability to continue supplying the domestic market.
      The international market for acrylic fiber is laced with 
direct and indirect foreign government support for our competitors, 
including tariffs much higher than the U.S. levels and a myriad of 
other trade distorting practices that disadvantage our position. For 
example, China, the world's largest market for acrylic fiber, is an 
aggressive market manipulator, employing centralized fiber procurement 
strategies that regularly and significantly distort the global market.
      The 4.3% U.S. tariff on acrylic staple fiber is the 
lowest in any significant market in the world. Its unilateral 
suspension would be an unfair and unwarranted imposition on Sterling 
Fiber, completely exposing the American market we serve to foreign 
government-assisted competition without compensating reciprocity.
      Sterling Fibers currently sells our CFF acrylic fibers 
into India, China, Brazil, Korea, Japan and several European countries 
and pays a duty into all of them. The unilateral give-away of the U.S. 
tariff leaves us with no reciprocal tariff reduction by any of these 
countries.
      Accordingly, Sterling Fiber, Inc. requests withdrawal of 
the tariff suspension proposals that unfairly will disadvantage the 
only remaining viable U.S. production of acrylic fiber.
      NOTE: Sterling Fiber, Inc offers no objection to the 
temporary suspension of tariffs on modacrylic fiber. To the best of our 
knowledge, after Solutia's shutdown this product will no longer be 
produced in the U.S.

                                 

                                               LANXESS Corporation,
                                     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275
                                                    August 18, 2005
To Whom It May Concern,

    LANXESS Corporation is in support of H.R. 1715--A bill to reduce 
until December 31, 2008, the duty on PDCB (p-Dichlorobenzene), a key 
raw material used in manufacturing plastic. If this bill passes, it 
will benefit LANXESS Corporation and its customers, including Fortron 
Industries, a joint venture company of Celanese/Ticona and Kureha 
Chemical Industries.
    Published market research suggests that the only domestic producer 
of p-Dichlorobenzene lacks sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet 
current demand or support future growth in the United States.
    In 2004, LANXESS Corporation employed about 2,100 persons in the 
United States.
    LANXESS Corporation was formed when the Bayer Group combined most 
of its chemical businesses and large segments of its polymer 
activities. The company began operating as a legal entity in the United 
States on July 1, 2004. LANXESS Corporation is a member of the German 
LANXESS-Group that was spun-off from Bayer in January 2005.
    The LANXESS-Group manufactures high-quality products in the areas 
of chemicals, synthetic rubber and plastics. The companies' portfolio 
comprises basic and fine chemicals, color pigments, plastics, fibers, 
synthetic rubber and rubber chemicals, leather, textile processing 
chemicals, paper chemicals, material protection products and water 
treatment products.
    If I can answer any questions or otherwise assist in this matter, 
please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at 412-809-3666 or by e-
mailing me at [email protected].
    Yours sincerely,
                                                 Jamie B. Schaeffer
                                 International Trade and Compliance

                                 

                                               PPG Industries, Inc.
                                    Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146
                                                    August 19, 2005
Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

    I am writing to file PPG Industries, Inc.'s (PPG) objection to the 
provision in H.R. 1715 to reduce the import duty on para 
dichlorobenzene (para). PPG manufactures para at our facility in New 
Martinsville, West Virginia. Para is used to manufacture engineered 
plastics, in deodorant blocks, moth prevention and other applications. 
Its use in the deodorant application has been declining in recent years 
due to regulations and increasing manufacturing costs. However, para 
use in plastics manufacturing is growing as these plastics offer 
reduced weight and thus increased energy efficiency in automotive and 
other applications.
    PPG has current capacity to meet nearly 70% of the U.S. demand for 
para. We have the technology to increase capacity to cover a vast 
majority of the U.S. demand. In prior years, there were other U.S. 
manufacturers of para; however, they have exited the business; Metachem 
in 2002 and Solutia in 2004.
    PPG does not import para, however, others have imported to the U.S. 
market for many years. In fact, imports have been taking an increasing 
share of the U.S. market since 2000. At current duty, para imports have 
increased 300%: from 12% of U.S. demand in 2000 to 40% of U.S. demand 
in 2004. Imports are projected to rise again in 2005. This growth has 
occurred even when U.S. plants are operating at far less than full 
capacity, indicating that imported para, including duty, is priced 
sufficiently below U.S. producer prices to gain market share.
    PPG objects to the duty reduction provision on para on the basis 
that there is sufficient domestic capacity to meet demand. Imports have 
continued to increase at the current duty levels and any reduction or 
elimination of the duty will further promote imports. This will 
threaten the viability of PPG as the last U.S. producer and will 
encourage the exportation of good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs to 
Asia. In addition, a duty reduction, will give those buyers using 
domestic supply a competitive disadvantage to those using imported 
supply.
    Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if 
you have any questions.
                                                 Michael H. McGarry
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                              Sony Electronics Inc.
                                       Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Sony Electronics Inc., one of the last remaining 
producers of television sets in the United States, I thank you for the 
opportunity to submit comments in support of the captioned duty 
suspension bill. This legislation would suspend temporarily the duty on 
Liquid Crystal Device (LCD) panel assemblies for use in the production 
of LCD projection type televisions.
    Sony Electronics Inc. strongly advocates passage of this 
legislation as a means to promote tariff equality between television 
producers in Mexico and those in the U.S. who are struggling to 
survive. Beginning on the following page is a Statement in Support of 
the subject legislation.
    Should you have any questions about this submission, please do not 
hesitate to contact me.
                                                       David Newman
                                                     Senior Counsel
                                 ______
                                 
    The purpose of the Liquid Crystal Device (``LCD'') Panel Assembly 
For Projection (also known as ``PJ'') Televisions Temporary Duty 
Suspension legislation is to save manufacturing jobs in the United 
States. Right now, U.S. television manufacturing is under siege from 
foreign competition. In order for the industry to remain viable it must 
convert to the manufacture of advanced display TV's that are not as 
price point sensitive as the cheaper TV's produced in countries such as 
China. There is a fledgling business of manufacturing advanced display 
televisions in the U.S., but it is in danger of premature collapse. The 
LCD projection TV business, though very young, is in danger of 
collapse. Duty suspension for LCD panel assemblies for PJ TV's will 
provide a sustaining incentive to maintain and grow local production.
Background
    LCD panel assemblies are a critical input in the production of LCD 
PJ TV's. However, these LCD panel assemblies are not produced in the 
U.S. and must be procured from foreign sources in order to assemble 
television sets in the U.S. Currently, the tariff provision for these 
inputs 9013.80.9000 HTSUS, dutiable at 4.5% ad valorem.
    This provision covers ``Liquid crystal devices not constituting 
articles provided for more specifically in other headings . . . other 
devices, appliances and instruments; other.''
About LCD Panel Assemblies For Projection Type Televisions
    Liquid crystal device panel assemblies for PJ TV's consist of a 
liquid crystal layer sandwiched between two sheets or plates of glass 
or plastics. These glass sandwiches are fitted with electrodes running 
in rows and columns. The intersecting points of the electrodes are 
where individual coordinates or pixels are activated when supplied with 
voltage. These assemblies are incorporated in an optical block assembly 
that is fitted with optics and electronic circuitry. Light is polarized 
in the optical block, separated into three light beams representing 
each of the primary colors, red, green and blue. Each light beam is 
shone through an LCD panel assembly, one for each color, where the 
light is allowed to pass through or blocked at each coordinate or pixel 
in the LCD panel. Optics are used to recombine the light from each 
optical stream into the image that is ultimately projected on the 
viewing screen. The LCD panel assemblies may be analogized to the small 
monochrome CRT's used in CRT PJ TV's in that they are the light engines 
for the creation of video images. In the subject legislation, the panel 
assemblies are to be entered for use in LCD PJ TV's.
Rationale For Duty Suspension
    American TV manufacturers have made Herculean efforts to squeeze 
costs out of production in order to remain competitive with producers 
in such low cost locations as China, Korea and Mexico. However, duty 
amounts attributable to the key inputs like the LCD panel assemblies 
for PJ TV's tip the scales against U.S. production.
    Duty suspension for the LCD panel assemblies would help level the 
playing field against foreign competitors. With respect to LCD PJ TV's, 
under the Mexican PROSEC duty [suspension] program, LCD panel 
assemblies are exempted from duty in Mexico as a means to compensate 
for the NAFTA Article 303 duty deferral provisions which would 
otherwise require payment of duty upon withdrawal of the manufactured 
TV from a Mexican Maquiladora for export to the U.S. Furthermore, upon 
import into the U.S. of the complete LCD PJ TV's under NAFTA, zero duty 
is paid. In sum, no duty is paid on the inputs into Mexico or the 
finished televisions imported into the U.S. because Mexico has provided 
exactly the same type of duty exemption that is the subject of this 
bill, duty relief on critical TV manufacturing inputs.
    The need for duty suspension has lately become acute because of the 
move to advanced technology flat panel display TV's. The production of 
these TV's has changed the competitive environment in which U.S. 
producers operate. A primary reason that large screen CRT TV 
manufacturing still exists in the U.S. is proximity to the major 
domestic markets. This has given the few remaining U.S. TV producers a 
transportation cost advantage for the large, heavy CRT television sets 
traditionally produced domestically. To date, this logistics cost 
advantage has helped offset the labor cost advantage enjoyed by U.S. 
competitors. New technology such as LCD PJ TV displays have made 
television sets smaller and lighter, thereby reducing the cost of 
shipping these TV's over long distances. In other words, U.S. producers 
have lost the advantage associated with being close to market. Combined 
with the benefits bestowed on foreign producers because of NAFTA, lower 
transportation costs have given Mexican producers significant cost 
advantage.
There Is No Domestic Source For LCD Panel Assemblies
    Duty suspension for the LCD panel assemblies for PJ TV's will not 
harm any U.S. industries because these inputs are not produced in the 
U.S. On the other hand, duty suspension will create an incentive to 
keep TV production in the U.S., thereby also creating a demand for 
locally procured TV parts.
Conclusion
    Today, no duty is paid on the non-North American LCD panel 
assemblies or the LCD TV's imported from Mexico. U.S. TV manufacturers 
should no longer be subject to this unfair disadvantage and should get 
the same duty free treatment for critical inputs that has flowed from 
NAFTA implementation.

                                 

                                              Sony Electronics Inc.
                                       Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Sony Electronics Inc., one of the last remaining 
producers of cathode ray tubes (``CRT's'') for television sets in the 
United States, I thank you for the opportunity to submit comments in 
support of the captioned duty suspension bill. This legislation would 
suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for use in the production 
of high definition CRT's.
    Sony Electronics Inc. strongly advocates passage of this 
legislation as a means to promote tariff equality between television 
producers in Mexico and those in the U.S. who are struggling to 
survive. Beginning on the following page is a Statement in Support of 
the subject legislation.
                                                       David Newman
                                                     Senior Counsel
                                 ______
                                 
    The purpose of the High Definition (``HD'') Electron Gun Temporary 
Duty Suspension legislation is to save manufacturing jobs in the United 
States. Right now, U.S. television manufacturing is under siege from 
foreign competition. In order for the industry to remain viable it must 
convert to the manufacture of advanced display TV's that are not as 
price point sensitive as the cheaper TV's produced in countries such as 
China. There is a struggling business of manufacturing advanced display 
televisions in the U.S. using the tried and true Cathode Ray Tube 
(``CRT''), but it is in danger of premature collapse. It is being 
squeezed between very low cost foreign CRT televisions and the 
emergence of new technology flat panel screen TV's.
    The high definition (wide screen) CRT TV business is the last 
generation of the venerable CRT television. CRT TV production and sales 
will soon be overtaken by flat panel screen TV's as the latter become 
much cheaper to make and sell. Now that flat panel screen TV's with 
non-NAFTA flat panel assemblies can enter the U.S. duty free from 
Mexico, their selling costs have already declined. Duty suspension for 
electron guns for high definition CRT TV's will provide an incentive to 
sustain local production of high definition CRT's and the TV's made 
with them.
Background
    Direct View CRT TV's have had several distinct advantages over 
other technologies, including flat panel technologies such as plasma. 
They offer contrast, black level and viewing angle superiority. Direct 
View TV's also have the best record of long term reliability. In the 
new wide screen format, these advantages lend themselves well to high 
definition TV viewing. On the other hand, CRT TV's are very large and 
bulky. Traditional CRT's were not made in large projection television 
sizes because TV glass is incredibly heavy. A 40 inch Direct View TV 
weighs over 300 pounds and requires three people to deliver to a 
customer. Even a 36 inch TV weighs in at well over 200 pounds.
    Direct view flat panel screen TV's, sleek and light, were never in 
the same class or kind and never competed with CRT TV's. For one thing, 
they were extremely expensive. But now, their prices are dropping 
dramatically. Even direct view LCD TV prices are dropping, as panel 
manufacturers are able to produce more large sized panels out of a 
single sheet of glass. Second, flat panel screen televisions were not 
as bright. Nor did they have a record of reliability. This has begun to 
change as the technology is refined. All of the North American 
production of direct view LCD TV's is performed in Mexico as is 
virtually all production of plasma TV's. The reason for this is not 
lower labor costs alone. It is also lower duty costs because of NAFTA 
and Mexican government initiatives, as will be explained below.
    On the other end of the competitive spectrum, because the cost of 
producing the mature CRT technology continues to drop, the sets have 
become more accessible and the market continues to be flooded by 
foreign competitors, accelerating price erosion. In North America, 
virtually all CRT TV production is in Mexico, again for reasons that 
include NAFTA and Mexican government programs that promote its domestic 
industry. Only one company, Sony Electronics Inc. continues to produce 
televisions (without video recording or reproducing apparatus) in the 
U.S.
    Electron guns for high definition CRT's are a critical input in the 
production HD CRT TV's. These electron guns are not produced in the 
U.S. and must be procured from foreign sources in order to manufacture 
CRT's and the television sets that contain them in the U.S. Currently, 
the tariff provision for these inputs 8540.91.50 HTSUS, dutiable at 
5.4% ad valorem.
    This provision covers ``Thermionic, cold cathode or photocathode 
tubes (for example, vacuum or vapor or gas filled tubes, mercury arc 
rectifying tubes, cathode-ray tubes, television camera tubes); parts 
thereof: Parts: Of cathode-ray tubes: Other.''
Rationale For Duty Suspension
    American TV manufacturers have made Herculean efforts to squeeze 
costs out of production in order to remain competitive with producers 
in such low cost locations as China, Korea and Mexico. However, duty 
amounts attributable to the key inputs like the electron guns tip the 
scales against U.S. production.
    Duty suspension of the high definition electron guns would help 
level the playing field against foreign competitors. With respect to 
competing televisions of all technologies, under the Mexican PROSEC 
duty [suspension] program, key inputs are exempted from duty in Mexico 
as a means to compensate for the NAFTA Article 303 duty deferral 
provisions which would otherwise require payment of duty upon 
withdrawal of the manufactured TV from a Mexican Maquiladora for export 
to the U.S. Furthermore, upon import into the U.S. of these TV's under 
NAFTA, zero duty is paid. In sum, no duty is paid on the inputs into 
Mexico or the finished televisions imported into the U.S. because 
Mexico has provided exactly the same type of duty exemption that is the 
subject of this bill, duty relief on critical TV manufacturing inputs.
    Though the duty savings to be achieved through this legislation 
will be quite modest on a per unit basis (less than a dollar per TV), 
every dollar saved by a U.S. manufacturer is significant to the 
viability and preservation of its plant and manufacturing jobs. The 
news has been full of articles about the steady decline of the U.S. TV 
industry. Fierce foreign competition has forced the closing and scaling 
back of numerous facilities and manufacturing lines, including CRT 
glass and CRT production facilities.
    Continued U.S. TV production is dependent on even small cost 
savings. Further, these savings can translate into the preservation of 
production of other TV products because retention of wide screen TV 
production allows fixed cost allocation across a wider range of 
products. If a U.S. producer loses individual lines, like high 
definition direct view CRT TV production, the plant's fixed cost burden 
falls on fewer products. This is how cost competitiveness and 
ultimately production is lost to foreign competitors.
There Is No Domestic Source For HD Electron Guns
    Duty suspension for the HD electron guns will not harm any U.S. 
industries because these inputs are not produced in the U.S. On the 
other hand, duty suspension will create an incentive to keep TV 
production in the U.S., thereby also creating a demand for locally 
procured TV parts.
Conclusion
    Today, no duty is paid on the non-North American inputs for TV's 
imported from Mexico. U.S. TV manufacturers should no longer be subject 
to this unfair disadvantage and should get the same duty free treatment 
for critical inputs that has flowed from NAFTA implementation.

                                 

                                              Sony Electronics Inc.
                                        Park Ridge, New Jersey 7656
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Sony Electronics Inc., one of the last remaining 
producers of television sets in the United States, I thank you for the 
opportunity to submit comments in support of the captioned duty 
suspension bill. This legislation would suspend temporarily the duty on 
Liquid Crystal Device (LCD) panel assemblies for use in the production 
of LCD direct view televisions.
    Sony Electronics Inc. strongly advocates passage of this 
legislation as a means to promote tariff equality between television 
producers in Mexico and those in the U.S. who are struggling to 
survive. Beginning on the following page is a Statement in Support of 
the subject legislation.
                                                       David Newman
                                                     Senior Counsel
                                 ______
                                 
    The purpose of the Liquid Crystal Device (``LCD'') Panel Assembly 
Temporary Duty Suspension legislation is to save manufacturing jobs in 
the United States. Right now, U.S. television manufacturing is under 
siege from foreign competition. In order for the industry to remain 
viable it must convert to the manufacture of advanced display TV's that 
are not as price point sensitive as the cheaper TV's produced in 
countries such as China. There is a fledgling business of manufacturing 
advanced display televisions in the U.S., but it is in danger of 
premature collapse. The LCD direct view TV business, the future of 
direct view TV in the U.S. has not even sprouted domestic roots. Duty 
suspension for LCD panel assemblies will provide a sustaining incentive 
to grow local production.
Background
    LCD panel assemblies are a critical input in the production of LCD 
TV's. However, these LCD panel assemblies are not produced in the U.S. 
and must be procured from foreign sources in order to assemble 
television sets in the U.S. Currently, the tariff provisions and duty 
rates for these inputs are as follows:
    LCD Panel Assemblies For Direct View Televisions--9013.80.9000, 
HTSUS, dutiable at 4.5% ad valorem.
    This provision covers ``Liquid crystal devices not constituting 
articles provided for more specifically in other headings . . . other 
devices, appliances and instruments; other.''
About LCD Panel Assemblies
    Liquid crystal device panel assemblies consist of a liquid crystal 
layer sandwiched between two sheets or plates of glass or plastics. 
These glass sandwiches, in their typical condition as imported, are 
also fitted with electrodes running in rows and columns. The 
intersecting points of the electrodes are where individual coordinates 
or pixels are activated when supplied with voltage. They contain 
electrical connections and because, the electronics necessary to supply 
the voltages to the electrodes must be custom fitted or harmonized to 
their respective glass sandwiches, the electronics consisting of 
mounted circuit boards are assembled onto the panel as part of the 
assembly.
    In the subject legislation, the panel assemblies are to be imported 
for use in LCD direct view televisions, not LCD projection televisions. 
The television images are displayed directly on the viewing screen, as 
opposed to being projected onto a screen from the rear of a TV. Direct 
view LCD TV's and plasma TV's are the two advance display technologies 
now available in very thin and light profiles. These are the TV's 
perhaps best known for being sleek and light enough to be hung on 
walls.
Rationale For Duty Suspension
    American TV manufacturers have made Herculean efforts to squeeze 
costs out of production in order to remain competitive with producers 
in such low cost locations as China, Korea and Mexico. However, duty 
amounts attributable to the key inputs like the LCD panel assemblies 
tip the scales against U.S. production.
    Duty suspension of the LCD panel assemblies would help level the 
playing field against foreign competitors. With respect to the LCD 
TV's, under the Mexican PROSEC duty [suspension] program, LCD panels 
are exempted from duty in Mexico as a means to compensate for the NAFTA 
Article 303 duty deferral provisions which would otherwise require 
payment of duty upon withdrawal of the manufactured TV from a Mexican 
Maquiladora for export to the U.S. Furthermore, upon import into the 
U.S. of the complete LCD TV's under NAFTA, zero duty is paid. In sum, 
no duty is paid on the inputs into Mexico or the finished televisions 
imported into the U.S. because Mexico has provided exactly the same 
type of duty exemption that is the subject of this bill, duty relief on 
critical TV manufacturing inputs.
    The need for duty suspension has lately become acute because of the 
move to advanced technology flat panel display TV's. The production of 
these TV's has changed the competitive environment in which U.S. 
producers operate. A primary reason that large screen CRT TV 
manufacturing still exists in the U.S. is proximity to the major 
domestic markets. This has given the few remaining U.S. TV producers a 
transportation cost advantage for the large, heavy CRT television sets 
traditionally produced domestically. To date, this logistics cost 
advantage has helped offset the labor cost advantage enjoyed by U.S. 
competitors. New technology such as Plasma and LCD displays have made 
television sets smaller and lighter, thereby reducing the cost of 
shipping these TV's over long distances. In other words, U.S. producers 
have lost the advantage associated with being close to market. Combined 
with the benefits bestowed on foreign producers because of NAFTA, lower 
transportation costs have given Mexican producers significant cost 
advantage.
There Is No Domestic Source For LCD Panel Assemblies
    Duty suspension for the LCD panel assemblies will not harm any U.S. 
industries because these inputs are not produced in the U.S. On the 
other hand, duty suspension will create an incentive to keep TV 
production in the U.S., thereby also creating a demand for locally 
procured TV parts.
Effect On The Revenue Of The U.S.

    On information and belief, there are no imports of commercial 
quantities of LCD panel assemblies for LCD direct view TV production. 
Therefore, there are no significant revenues attributable to the 
importation of these products. The purpose of duty suspension is to 
stimulate U.S. production. Without it, imports will not commence. 
Rather, finished LCD direct view TV's will continue to be imported, 
many from Mexico duty free under NAFTA.
Conclusion

    Today, no duty is paid on the non-North American LCD panel 
assemblies or the LCD TV's imported from Mexico. U.S. TV manufacturers 
should no longer be subject to this unfair disadvantage and should get 
the same duty free treatment for critical inputs that has flowed from 
NAFTA implementation.

                                 

                                                           Chemtura
                                      Middlebury, Connecticut 06749
                                                  September 2, 2005
David Kavanaugh
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

Re: HR 1782 and 2056

    Chemtura is strongly opposed to the proposal to remove duties on 
the following products:

     Palmitic Acid (HR 1782)
     Palm fatty acid distillates (HR 2056)

    Chemtura manufactures approximately 200MM lb/yr of various fatty 
acids, including palm derived and coconut derived products, in our 
Memphis, Tennessee plant. This product is chemically converted into 
amides, stearates and esters which are used as additives for plastics 
and for other markets, and also sold for use as chemical intermediates 
in the U.S. Chemtura is one of four U.S. based manufacturers of these 
products.
    Competition from low cost, Asian sources has put a significant 
strain on U.S. based Oleochemicals producers. Elimination of this duty 
into the U.S. will result in reduced production and employment at the 
Memphis facility.
    In addition, Biodiesel legislation offering subsidies for 
production of biodiesel in the U.S. already has significantly impacted 
profitability of the Oleochemicals sector by introducing new supplies 
of glycerin, a byproduct of both biodiesel and fatty acid manufacture. 
This new supply of glycerin has reduced the selling price of this 
byproduct as much as 40% over the last 12 months, unfavorably impacting 
the cost of fatty acid production.
    While the biodiesel legislation has been approved for the greater 
good of the country's energy position, the combined impact of 
elimination of the duties and biodiesel will significantly impact our 
ability to continue operating and could result in the loss of over 325 
U.S. jobs at our Memphis facility.
            Sincerely,
                                                Elizabeth Thomasino
                                       Manager, Imports and Customs

                                                      Lloyd N. Moon
                    Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs

                                 

                                    Montana Cattlemen's Association
                                            Billings, Montana 59107
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Montana Cattlemen's Association (MCA) is a state wide organization 
representing over 1,300 cattle producers and their families. Our 
producer members are directly impacted by the effects of foreign 
imports displacing domestic production and having direct impact on our 
domestic prices.
    Montana Cattlemen's Association welcomes the opportunity to comment 
on the bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous 
package, in particular H.R. 1802, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 
1930 with respect to the marking of imported live bovine animals,'' 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1802 is an important bill and one that should not attract 
significant controversy. MCA believes it makes sense to include this 
bill in the miscellaneous trade package. Federal law already requires 
that, in general, imports must be marked with their country of origin. 
For many years, however, the Treasury Department has exempted livestock 
by including it on its ``J-list'' (19 C.F.R. Sec. 134.33) of imports 
that need not be marked or branded pursuant to the requirements of the 
Trade Act of 1930. Livestock should not be exempted from those 
requirements. It is not impractical to require imported livestock to be 
indelibly marked, and it is important to require marking, not only for 
tracking and identification, but to demonstrate the commitment of the 
United States to compliance with established U.S. rules on inspection 
and testing.
    The miscellaneous trade bill has been used in the past to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to specify particular imports for which country-of-
origin marking is expressly required. For example, the marking of 
certain silk products was specifically required by the Miscellaneous 
Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999, and the marking of certain 
coffee and tea products as well as the marking of spices was explicitly 
required by the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
1996. Like these prior amendments, H.R. 1802 logically should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package, and MCA urges its 
inclusion and enactment.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are not well suited for inclusion 
in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. MCA supports maintaining strong and effective trade 
laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for U.S. 
ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as U.S. manufacturers and 
workers. In a fair market, U.S. producers are second to none. When 
foreign competitors flood the U.S. market with dumped and subsidized 
goods, however, the trade laws must be in place to provide a remedy for 
injury caused by unfairly traded imports. MCA believes it would be 
inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, 
but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in 
the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, MCA believes that H.R. 1121 should not be included in 
the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    MCA is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate Body 
of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill 
is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions and 
enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and the 
Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on CDSOA 
and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new obligations 
that the United States never agreed to and which are not found in the 
text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has previously 
directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of these disputes 
at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in the Doha Round 
rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete that process, 
which ought to result in a correction of the problems created by panel 
and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, MCA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments and 
would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into account MCA's 
views on the three bills discussed above.
                                                   Brett DeBruycker
                                                          President

                                 

      Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
                                                            America
                                            Billings, Montana 59107
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
America (R-CALF USA) is submitting these comments in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for written comments for the record from all 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. R-CALF USA is a national, non-
profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability 
and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA has more than 
18,000 members, primarily cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and 
feedlot owners, located in 47 states.
    R-CALF USA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bills being 
considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous package, in particular 
H.R. 1802, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the 
marking of imported live bovine animals.''
    H.R. 1802 is an important bill and one that should not attract 
significant controversy. R-CALF USA believes it makes sense to include 
this bill in the miscellaneous trade package. Federal law already 
requires that, in general, imports must be marked with their country of 
origin. For many years, however, the Treasury Department has exempted 
livestock by including it on its ``J-list'' (19 C.F.R. Sec. 134.33) of 
imports that need not be marked or branded pursuant to the requirements 
of the Trade Act of 1930. Livestock should not be exempted from those 
requirements. It is not impractical to require imported livestock to be 
indelibly marked, and it is important to require marking, not only for 
tracking and identification, but to demonstrate the commitment of the 
United States to compliance with established U.S. rules on inspection 
and testing.
    The miscellaneous trade bill has been used in the past to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to specify particular imports for which country-of-
origin marking is expressly required. For example, the marking of 
certain silk products was specifically required by the Miscellaneous 
Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999, and the marking of certain 
coffee and tea products as well as the marking of spices was explicitly 
required by the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
1996. Like these prior amendments, H.R. 1802 logically should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package, and R-CALF USA urges its 
inclusion and enactment.
    Again, R-CALF USA appreciates the opportunity to submit these 
comments and would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into 
account R-CALF USA's views on this important bill.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                   Leo R. McDonnell
                                                          President

                                 

                                                     Continental AG
                                       Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326
                                                    August 29, 2005
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

    Continental Automotive Systems is a major supplier of brakes, brake 
and chassis systems, and electronics to the automobile industry. We are 
a division of Continental AG, which has over 81,000 employees in 27 
countries, including the United States. Among our products are brake-
by-wire systems for electric and hybrid vehicles. Brake-by-wire systems 
are essential to take full advantage of the potential fuel savings of 
these vehicles. This technology allows maximum use of re-captured 
energy to recharge the batteries during braking.
    Continental supports H.R. 1877. This bill will give economic 
support for production and spread of hybrid cars in the U.S. which will 
reduce fuel consumption and reduce the environmental impact of motor 
vehicles.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
                                                  Philip M. Headley
                              Chief Engineer, Advanced Technologies

                                 

                                         Cherry Marketing Institute
                                             Dewitt, Michigan 48820
                                                    August 10, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    I am writing today on behalf of Michigan sweet cherry farmers who 
remain opposed to House Bill 1914. This proposed bill changes the way 
the duty is calculated on imported cherries in brine. This change would 
have a net result of a 40-50% reduction in the current tariff 
structure. This reduction would encourage more cheap cherry brine 
imports into the United States and displace domestically grown 
cherries.
    In Michigan today, there are 9,000 acres of sweet cherries. Last 
year Michigan produced 24,700 tons of sweet cherries with 18,100 tons 
brined (73%). This year Michigan's crop is estimated to produce a 
record crop of 27,000 tons of sweet cherries, for an increase of 9% 
more than 2004 production. Michigan is a major producer of stem-off 
cherries which are sold for processing. We produce stem-off fruit 
because Michigan utilizes mechanical harvesters to harvest both their 
tart and sweet cherry crops. A typical grower will grow about 1/3 sweet 
cherries and 2/3 tart cherries. This production system allows growers 
to utilize expensive harvest equipment on two crops. Because these 
cherries are mechanically harvested they cannot be sold fresh. The loss 
of the brined cherry market would be devastating to both the sweet 
cherry and tart cherry industry in the state.
    Michigan sweet cherry growers are strongly opposed to any reduction 
in the tariff structure on brine cherries. We believe it will encourage 
processors to buy cheap foreign cherries instead of cherries from U.S. 
farmers. The brine cherry market in the United States today is a very 
price sensitive market. It is not a big market, and is not a growth 
market. Given this flat market, any increase in imported brine cherries 
will reduce the demand for domestically produced brine cherries.
    Michigan growers are also concerned about China and the impact it 
will have on the world market as its new sweet cherries plantings come 
into production. We believe sweet cherries imports from China will 
increase in the next five years and that it is not in the best interest 
of U.S. farmers to make it easier for China or Turkey to export to the 
U.S. market.
    We urge the House Ways and Means Committee to NOT consider HR1914 
to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill (MTB).
            Sincerely,
                                                Philip J. Korson II
                                                          President

                                 

                                                      Tarkett, Inc.
                                               Houston, Texas 77007

                                             Mannington Mills, Inc.
                                            Salem, New Jersey 08079

                                   Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
                                      Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603

                                                    Congoleum Corp.
                                      Mercerville, New Jersey 08619
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Room 1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Pursuant to the July 25, 2005, Advisory of the Subcommittee on 
Trade (Trade Advisory No. TR-3), requesting written comments on 
miscellaneous duty suspension bills, we provide these comments on 
behalf of Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Congoleum Corporation, 
Mannington Mills, Inc. and Tarkett, Inc. H.R. 1934 was introduced by 
Congressmen Joseph Pitts, Christopher Smith and Frank LoBiondo and 
would temporarily suspend duties on certain vinyl chloride-vinyl 
acetate copolymers through December 31, 2009.
    The copolymers described in H.R. 1934 are used to produce vinyl 
composition floor tile (``VCT''), which is manufactured domestically by 
the above four companies. Recent U.S. plant closures have led to a 
drastic decline in the domestic availability of these copolymers. As a 
result, domestic flooring producers have been required to significantly 
increase their imports of these materials. As explained below, a 
temporary suspension or reduction of current Normal Trade Relations 
(``NTR''), duties on imports of these copolymers would be fully 
consistent with Congressional requirements for miscellaneous duty 
suspension bills. Among other things, this action would benefit our 
companies in their downstream U.S. production, would be consistent with 
Congressional revenue loss limitations, and would not be controversial 
or difficult to administer.
    These companies are leading producers of resilient flooring 
products, including VCT, in the United States. Armstrong World 
Industries, Inc. is headquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and has 
flooring manufacturing plants in California, Illinois, Mississippi, 
Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Congoleum Corporation is headquartered in 
Mercerville, New Jersey and designs and manufactures resilient flooring 
products in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Mannington Mills, 
Inc. is headquartered in Salem, New Jersey and produces resilient 
flooring products in New Jersey. Tarkett, Inc. has major U.S. flooring 
production facilities in Alabama, New York and Texas.
    H.R. 1934 would temporarily suspend duties on the vinyl chloride-
vinyl acetate copolymers described in subheading 3904.30.60 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') (the 
``Copolymers''). (The CAS number for the Copolymers is 9003-22-9.) 
Virtually all of the suspension form of the Copolymers are used in the 
United States in the manufacture of flooring products. Specifically, 
each of our companies uses Copolymers as a key material input in the 
production of VCT flooring. VCT is a flooring product that is 
manufactured in 12'' x 12'' squares and commonly used in many 
commercial applications, including schools, hospitals and office 
buildings. The cost of Copolymers adds significantly to the cost of 
producing VCT flooring. Depending on the formulation of the specific 
VCT flooring product, Copolymers can represent 20 percent or more of 
the materials cost and about 15 percent of the total cost of VCT 
flooring.
    In the last year, there has been a drastic decline in the 
availability of U.S.-produced Copolymers due to the closure of 
Copolymer production facilities in Pottstown, Pennsylvania (OxyChem) 
and Illiopolis, Illinois (Formosa Plastics). As a result of these 
closures, there is only one remaining domestic producer of Copolymers--
a facility operated by Colorite in Burlington, New Jersey. Because this 
facility is capable of producing less than a quarter of U.S. demand for 
Copolymers, our companies must now import substantially increased 
supplies of Copolymers from foreign producers and anticipate that such 
imports will be required for the foreseeable future.
    This drastic change in domestic supply conditions for Copolymers 
prompted our companies to seek the temporary duty suspension set forth 
in H.R. 1934. Before the listed companies sought this legislation, they 
confirmed with Mr. Dave Axmann, the General Manager of the Colorite 
facility, that Colorite would not oppose temporary suspension of duties 
on Copolymers.
    Suppliers in countries afforded duty-free treatment under HTSUS 
3904.30.60, including Canada, Mexico and Colombia, can supply, on a 
duty-free basis, a portion of the domestic flooring industry's 
increased demand for Copolymer imports. Our companies anticipate, 
however, that they will be required to make substantial imports from 
countries subject to the current 5.3 percent NTR duty. According to 
company officials, capacity limitations in current duty-free countries 
and demand by non-U.S. users will prevent U.S. importers from further 
increasing imports of Copolymers from countries that are currently 
afforded duty-free treatment. Thus, to meet its current and anticipated 
demands for Copolymers, the domestic flooring industry must now and for 
the foreseeable future also import substantial quantities of Copolymers 
from suppliers in countries subject to the current NTR duty, including 
Germany, Brazil, Belgium, Japan and Taiwan. The duties on these imports 
place an increasing and unnecessary cost on U.S. VCT flooring producers 
and will make it more difficult for these producers to hold down costs 
for their private and public sector customers.
    It is also potentially significant that the Government of Canada's 
Department of Finance has also agreed to provide duty-free treatment 
for Copolymers from non-NAFTA countries to address shortfalls in 
supplies from duty-free suppliers in the U.S.
    Our companies respectfully request that the Subcommittee on Trade 
include in its miscellaneous tariff legislation a temporary duty 
suspension or duty reduction for the imports described in H.R. 1934. 
The bill meets (or can be revised to meet) the criteria established by 
Congress for miscellaneous tariff legislation.
    First, the legislation would benefit the undersigned producers of 
VCT flooring in the United States. As noted above, our companies use 
Copolymers in the downstream production of VCT flooring at their U.S. 
plants. The cost of Copolymers is a significant factor in the cost of 
VCT tile. Temporary suspension or elimination of the current NTR 5.3 
percent duty on Copolymers would help promote the competitiveness of 
U.S. flooring production and help keep down costs for the private, 
institutional and public sector purchasers and users of VCT flooring.
    Second, the financial impact of the bill can be tailored to comply 
with the $500,000 annual revenue loss limitation mandated by Congress. 
If the estimated revenue loss of a full suspension of NTR duties on 
Copolymers would exceed this limitation (as appears likely), our 
companies would support changing the bill to provide for a duty 
reduction in an amount commensurate with this limitation.
    Third, the bill should attract no controversy. As noted above, 
Colorite, the sole remaining U.S. producer of Copolymers, has confirmed 
that it does not oppose this legislation. Additionally, the legislation 
should not adversely impact producers of Copolymers in countries 
currently receiving duty-free treatment. As noted above, Congressional 
revenue loss rules will likely require that the bill be recast as a 
temporary duty reduction rather than a full duty suspension. As a 
consequence of these reduced but remaining duties, our companies and 
any other purchasers will still have a strong incentive to purchase 
Copolymers from suppliers in duty-free countries or from the domestic 
supplier as opposed to suppliers in countries receiving temporary duty 
reductions. Additionally, the bill should create no difficulties for 
U.S. trade authorities because it clearly defines the merchandise 
subject to duty suspension or reduction, is easy to administer and does 
not operate retroactively.
    For these reasons, a temporary suspension or reduction of NTR 
duties on Copolymers should be included in the miscellaneous duty 
package assembled by the Subcommittee.
    Finally, we understand from recent discussions with the U.S. 
International Trade Commission that the Commission may propose certain 
revisions to the bill's technical language to improve the 
implementation and effectiveness of the legislation. We support the 
intent behind these efforts. We will review any specific proposed 
language changes when they are available and will provide the 
Subcommittee with any further views and comments on these proposed 
revisions.
    In the meantime, if we can provide additional information, please 
contact the undersigned. Thank you in advance for your consideration of 
this important issue for our companies and their employees.
                                              Edward F. Gerwin, Jr.

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments: AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                                              Brooks Brothers, Inc.
                                           New York, New York 10017
                                                    August 19, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    We are writing in response to the Subcommittee's request for 
written comments for the record related to duty suspension proposals. 
Garland Shirt Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Brooks Brothers, is 
a U.S. manufacturer of high quality cotton men's and boys' shirts, 
located in Garland, NC where we have been producing shirts for over 20 
years. We write in support of H.R. 1945, a bill introduced by 
Representatives Simmons and Etheridge to provide temporary duty relief 
for very high end two-ply shirting cotton fabrics for men's shirt 
manufacturers and to strengthen the industry.
    As a result of our trade agreements beginning with NAFTA, a 
tremendous disadvantage has been placed on U.S. manufacturers of high 
quality cotton men's and boys' shirts. While foreign makers of such 
shirts from many countries can import finished shirts into this country 
duty-free using two-ply shirting fabrics from any source, U.S. 
manufacturers continue to pay duties on fabric that the U.S. Congress 
and government have repeatedly found is no longer made in the U.S. As a 
result of this unintended duty inversion, the U.S. shirt manufacturing 
industry has suffered tremendously. The companies that remain in the 
U.S. produce world-renowned quality products and employ a highly 
skilled workforce but face duties on fabrics they rely upon while many 
of their foreign competitors are allowed preferential duty treatment. 
H.R. 1945 would help level the playing field, providing tariff relief 
and helping strengthen U.S. manufacturers, cotton growers and spinners.
    Beginning with NAFTA, and repeated in the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, and most recently in the DR-CAFTA agreement, Congress 
has extended generous trade preferences to foreign manufacturers in 
these countries to import finished shirts duty-free into the United 
States with fabric sourced from non-agreement countries. In each case, 
Congress has found that this fabric, two-ply high quality cotton 
shirting fabric, is not manufactured in the U.S. or in any of the 
countries under the above agreements. The International Trade 
Commission and the Department of Commerce has also repeatedly found 
that this fabric is not available in commercially available quantities 
in the United States in administrative findings on the fabric when used 
to produce other apparel items.
    H.R. 1945 provides duty relief to a narrow class of high-end two-
ply cotton fabric, some of which would need to contain U.S. cotton 
content, imported into the U.S. for shirt making, and would also 
reliquidate about one third of the duties U.S. manufactures have paid 
since NAFTA to be used to create a program that would strengthen the 
U.S. industry, including the manufacturers, spinners of high end yarn, 
and U.S. long staple (SUPIMAO) cotton growers. We believe this aspect 
of the bill is entirely appropriate to correct a policy that should 
never have occurred. As mentioned above, CAFTA extended the same duty-
free treatment to foreign manufacturers to bring finished shirts into 
the U.S. In fact, CAFTA went a step further, granting foreign 
manufacturers duty rebates for shirts entering the U.S. since January 
1, 2004. If the United States is going to provide duty refunds for 
foreign manufacturers, it only makes sense to return duties from U.S. 
manufacturers that we believe should never have been collected.
    H.R. 1945 will help preserve hundreds of domestic skilled jobs 
manufacturing dress shirts in Alabama, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, 
New Jersey, Tennessee and Louisiana, as well as promote employment for 
yarn spinners in Georgia and pima cotton growers in Texas, Arizona, New 
Mexico and California.
    We urge the Subcommittee and the full Committee on Ways and Means 
to include H.R. 1945 in any miscellaneous trade and tariff and duty 
suspension legislation that the Committee considers. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on this matter so important to the many 
employees of Brooks Brothers.
                                                          Joe Dixon
                                       V.P. Production and Sourcing

                                 

                                   Buhler Quality Yarns Corporation
                                           Jefferson, Georgia 30549
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing in response to the Subcommittee's request for written 
comments for the record related to duty suspension proposals. Buhler 
Quality Yarns Corporation is a Georgia-based, U.S. spinner of high 
quality, combed and ring spun, SUPIMA cotton yarns; the largest such 
spinner in the U.S. I write in support of H.R. 1945, a bill introduced 
by Representatives Simmons and Etheridge to provide temporary duty 
relief for very high end, shirting cotton fabrics for men's shirt 
manufacturers and to strengthen the industry.
    As a result of our trade agreements beginning with NAFTA, a 
tremendous disadvantage has been placed on U.S. manufacturers of high 
quality cotton men's and boys' shirts. While foreign makers of such 
shirts from many countries can import finished shirts into this country 
duty-free using shirting fabrics from any source, U.S. manufacturers 
continue to pay duties on fabric that the U.S. Congress and government 
have repeatedly found is no longer made in the U.S. As a result of this 
unintended duty inversion, the U.S. shirt manufacturing industry has 
suffered tremendously. The companies that remain in the U.S. produce 
world-renowned quality products and employ a highly skilled workforce 
but face duties on fabrics they rely upon while many of their foreign 
competitors are allowed preferential duty treatment. H.R. 1945 would 
help level the playing field, providing tariff relief and helping 
strengthen U.S. manufacturers, cotton growers and domestic spinners 
such as Buhler Quality Yarns, which are exporting their domestic made 
pima yarns for fabric making. Those fabrics are then imported by the 
mentioned shirting manufacturers with duty levied upon entry into the 
U.S., which discriminates not only those companies importing such 
fabrics, but also Buhler Quality Yarns as the manufacturer of the yarns 
used in such fabric.
    Beginning with NAFTA, and repeated in the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, and most recently in the
    DR-CAFTA agreement, Congress has extended generous trade 
preferences to foreign manufacturers in these countries to import 
finished shirts duty-free into the United States with fabric sourced 
from non-agreement countries. In each case, Congress has found that 
this fabric, high quality cotton shirting fabric, is not manufactured 
in the U.S. or in any of the countries under the above agreements. The 
International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce has also 
repeatedly found that this fabric is not available in commercially 
available quantities in the United States in administrative findings on 
the fabric when used to produce other apparel items. Buhler Quality 
Yarns makes the high-end pima cotton yarn for shirting fabric, and we 
do not know of any production in commercially available quantities of 
such high end, cotton shirting fabric in the U.S.
    H.R. 1945 provides duty relief to a narrow class of high-end cotton 
fabric, some of which would need to contain U.S. cotton content, 
imported into the U.S. for shirt making, and would also re-liquidate 
about one third of the duties U.S. manufactures have paid since NAFTA 
to be used to create a program that would strengthen the U.S. industry, 
including the manufacturers, spinners of high end yarn, and U.S. long 
staple (SUPIMA) cotton growers. As the largest U.S. spinner of these 
yarns, we would expect this legislation would increase the demand for 
yarn with U.S. pima cotton content. We believe the duty re-liquidation 
aspect of the bill is entirely appropriate to correct a policy that 
should never have occurred. As mentioned above, CAFTA extended the same 
duty-free treatment to foreign manufacturers to bring finished shirts 
into the U.S. In fact, CAFTA went a step further, granting foreign 
manufacturers duty rebates for shirts entering the U.S. since January 
1, 2004. If the United States is going to provide duty refunds for 
foreign manufacturers, it only makes sense to return duties from U.S. 
manufacturers that we believe should never have been collected.
    H.R. 1945 will help preserve hundreds of domestic skilled jobs 
manufacturing dress shirts in Alabama, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, 
New Jersey, Tennessee and Louisiana, as well as promote employment for 
yarn spinners in Georgia and pima cotton growers in Texas, Arizona, New 
Mexico and California.
    I urge the Subcommittee and the full Committee on Ways and Means to 
include H.R. 1945 in any miscellaneous trade and tariff and duty 
suspension legislation that the Committee considers. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on this matter so important to the 135 employees 
of Buhler Quality Yarns Corporation.
                                                           W. Bieri
                                                    President & CEO

                                 

                                                    Gitman Brothers
                                           New York, New York 10019
                                                    August 24, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    We send this strong request in support of H.R. 1945, which gives 
specific support and duty relief to manufacturers of men's shirting in 
the United States.
    Since the passing of NAFTA, Caribbean Basin and Sub Sahara Africa 
trade bills, some country specific trade bills and now CAFTA, countries 
all over the world now import cotton fabrics duty free then export 
shirts duty free unto the United States, while our own American 
factories pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in duty to import 
shirting fabrics, protecting an industry (fine shirting weaving) which 
does not exist in the United States anymore.
    We have 200 skilled artisans in a rural area of Pennsylvania making 
world class men's skirts and our goal is to have this factory twenty 
years form now, providing skilled employment to Pennsylvanians. In 
order to assure that, we need your help in the passage of this bill.
    We invite international competition; but please level the playing 
field for our American manufacturing businesses.
                                                   John Minahan III
                                                      CEO/President

                                 

                          National Council of Textile Organizations
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of the National Council of Textile 
Organization's (NCTO) strong opposition to duty suspension legislation 
for woven cotton shirting fabrics. Legislation to suspend duties on 
woven cotton shirting fabrics was introduced by Congressman Rob Simmons 
(R-CT) on April 27, 2005, and the bill number is H.R. 1945. Companion 
legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senator Arlen Specter (R-
PA) on April 6, 2005, and this bill number is S. 738.
    The NCTO is an association representing the entire spectrum of the 
textile industry, including fibers, yarns, fabrics and industry 
suppliers. Many of our member companies manufacture woven cotton 
shirting fabrics that are used in men's and boy's shirts. This category 
of imports is also very import sensitive and this is why NCTO and other 
trade associations applied earlier this year for a safeguard to be 
imposed against China in men's and boys' cotton woven shirts. The 
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) agreed 
that the U.S. market in this product category was indeed being 
disrupted by imports from China and granted a safeguard on May 27, 
2005. A major consideration in CITA's determination was the impact that 
China's imports of woven cotton men's and boys' shirts was having on 
U.S. fabric manufacturers.
    We understand that there is a difference of opinion between the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. Customs Service 
regarding the exact fabrics that would be covered under this duty 
suspension. While the ITC maintains that only certain fabrics will be 
covered under this legislation, specifically those fabrics covered 
under Annex 401 of the NAFTA, the Customs Service interprets this 
legislation to open the floodgates to all imports of woven cotton 
fabrics used in the production of men's and boys' shirts. If this 
happens, the U.S. textile industry would be devastated. For your 
information, I am enclosing a copy of the comments we submitted on the 
China safeguard petition for men's and boys' cotton woven shirts which 
contains detailed information regarding U.S. production of these 
products (Attachment 1).
    Given that there is a difference of opinion regarding which 
categories of cotton woven fabrics would be covered by this 
legislation, NCTO must strongly oppose these bills. The U.S. Customs 
Service will ultimately determine what imports will be covered should 
this legislation pass. The Customs Service has communicated with us, 
and I understand with the ITC as well, that it is their belief that 
this legislation will allow all imports of men's and boys' cotton woven 
shirting fabrics to enter the U.S. duty-free. As a result of this 
interpretation and since the U.S. government has already imposed 
safeguards against China in said product categories earlier this year 
due to the impact that imports are having on the market, we strongly 
encourage an unfavorable recommendation by the ITC.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If this industry is 
forced to absorb duty-free competition resulting from measures such as 
this, many companies will be unable to compete and will be forced to 
exit the market.
    I understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension process 
to address situations where domestic capacity does not exist. As 
evidenced by the attached information, U.S. manufacturers produce 
significant quantities of these products and are capable of meeting 
domestic demand. As a result, we do not believe this duty suspension 
merits approval, and NCTO strongly encourages an unfavorable report by 
the Committee on these bills.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Cass Johnson
                                                          President

                                 

                                                             Supima
                                             Phoenix, Arizona 85040
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    We are writing in response to the Subcommittee's request for 
written comments for the record related to duty suspension proposals. 
The Supima organization represents premium American Pima cotton growers 
in four southwestern states, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. 
American Pima cotton is known for its exceptional strength, uniformity 
and quality. Nationwide, American Pima cotton growers produce over $445 
million worth of pima cotton.
    We write in support of H.R. 1945, a bill introduced by 
Representatives Simmons and Etheridge to provide temporary duty relief 
for very high end two-ply shirting cotton fabrics for men's shirt 
manufacturers and to strengthen the industry, including SUPIMA cotton 
growers.
    As a result of our trade agreements beginning with NAFTA, a 
tremendous disadvantage has been placed on U.S. manufacturers of high 
quality cotton men's and boys' shirts. While foreign makers of such 
shirts from many countries can import finished shirts into this country 
duty-free using two-ply shirting fabrics from any source, U.S. 
manufacturers continue to pay duties on fabric that the U.S. Congress 
and government have repeatedly found is no longer made in the U.S. As a 
result of this unintended duty inversion, the U.S. shirt manufacturing 
industry has suffered tremendously. The companies that remain in the 
U.S. produce world-renowned quality products and employ a highly 
skilled workforce but face duties on fabrics they rely upon while many 
of their foreign competitors are allowed preferential duty treatment. 
H.R. 1945 would help level the playing field, providing tariff relief 
and helping strengthen U.S. manufacturers, cotton growers and spinners.
    Beginning with NAFTA, and repeated in the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, and most recently in the DR-CAFTA agreement, Congress 
has extended generous trade preferences to foreign manufacturers in 
these countries to import finished shirts duty-free into the United 
States with fabric sourced from non-agreement countries. In each case, 
Congress has found that this fabric, two-ply high quality cotton 
shirting fabric, is not manufactured in the U.S. or in any of the 
countries under the above agreements. The International Trade 
Commission and the Department of Commerce has also repeatedly found 
that this fabric is not available in commercially available quantities 
in the United States in administrative findings on the fabric when used 
to produce other apparel items.
    H.R. 1945 provides duty relief to a narrow class of high end two-
ply cotton shirting fabric, some of which would need to contain U.S. 
Pima cotton content, imported into the U.S. for shirt making. The bill 
would also reliquidate about one third of the duties U.S. manufactures 
have paid since NAFTA to be used to create a program that would 
strengthen the U.S. industry, including the manufacturers, spinners of 
high end yarn, and American Pima cotton growers. We expect to implement 
a `Buy American' program for SUPIMA cotton, and believe this aspect of 
the bill is entirely appropriate to correct a policy that should never 
have occurred. As mentioned above, CAFTA extended the same duty-free 
treatment to foreign manufacturers to bring finished shirts into the 
U.S. In fact, CAFTA went a step further, granting foreign manufacturers 
duty rebates for shirts entering the U.S. since January 1, 2004. If the 
United States is going to provide duty refunds for foreign 
manufacturers, it only makes sense to return duties from U.S. 
manufacturers that we believe should never have been collected.
    H.R. 1945 will help preserve hundreds of domestic skilled jobs 
manufacturing dress shirts in Alabama, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, 
New Jersey, Tennessee and Louisiana, as well as promote employment for 
yarn spinners in Georgia and American Pima cotton growers in Texas, 
Arizona, New Mexico and California.
    We urge the Subcommittee and the full Committee on Ways and Means 
to include H.R. 1945 in any miscellaneous trade and tariff and duty 
suspension legislation that the Committee considers. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on this matter so important to the many growers 
of American Pima cotton in the United States.
                                                    Jesse W. Curlee
                                                          President

                                 

                                                     HoMedics, Inc.
                                  Commerce Township, Michigan 48390
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    HoMedics Inc. (``HoMedics''), a privately held company 
headquartered in Commerce Township, Michigan, appreciates this 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1947, a bill to provide for the 
reliquidation of certain entries of Soundspa clock radios. Founded in 
1987, HoMedics established a reputation as the leading manufacturer of 
back and body massagers. The company expanded it personal healthcare 
and wellness line of products to include hot/cold compression wraps, 
footbaths, dental products, sensory relaxation systems, magnetic 
therapy products, and a wide range of personal care products. Today, 
HoMedics manufactures and markets the most complete line of home 
personal healthcare, wellness, and relaxation products sold in America.
    HoMedics strongly supports H.R. 1947, which would provide necessary 
relief by directing Customs to refund erroneously collected duties on 
the SoundSpa clock radios imported by HoMedics.
    HoMedics, Inc. (``Homedics'') imports model # SS-400, the SoundSpa 
Deluxe Acoustic Relaxation Machine with LCD Alarm Clock and AM/FM radio 
(``SS-400'' or ``SoundSpa''). The SS-400 contains an LCD clock display 
and clock timer. Besides the AM/FM radio function, the SS-400 plays a 
variety of natural sounds: woodlands, spring rain, mountain stream, 
ocean waves, and summer night.
    A Customs New York ruling, NY C87866, dated June 11, 1998, 
classified the SS-400 under 8527.19.5015, HTSUS, which provides for 
other radios incorporating a clock or clock timer, with a rate of duty 
of 3.6 percent ad valorem.
    Two years later, Customs Headquarters overturned the New York 
ruling in HQ 962340, dated July 6, 2000. The Headquarters ruling, which 
was issued to one of Homedics' customers, described the SoundSpa as a 
clock radio combined with an electronic sound microchip within the same 
housing. Headquarters noted that the natural sounds are reproduced from 
the microchip and that the intent of the drafters of the International 
Harmonized System was to take no notice of the sound microchips in 
classifying goods that contain them. By applying Note 3 to Section XVI, 
Customs found that the SoundSpa is a composite machine whose principal 
function is provided by the clock radio and that the SS-400 is 
classified according to the radio component under subheading 8527.19.10 
(EN), HTSUS, as a duty free reception apparatus. This subheading 
provides for other reception apparatus for radiotelephony combined with 
sound recording or reproducing apparatus, valued not over $40, 
incorporating a clock or clock-timer, not in combination with any other 
article, and not for installation in a motor vehicle.
    Homedics agrees with Customs Headquarters' final determination that 
the SS-400 is properly classified under 8527.19.10, HTSUS and is duty 
free. However, for several months, the product was misclassified as 
directed by the New York ruling. The misclassification and associated 
overpayment of duties was caused by the New York ruling, which Customs 
Headquarters later declared to be erroneous and overturned. Even though 
the New York ruling was erroneous, Homedics was required by the Customs 
regulations to follow it and deposit duties.
    H.R. 1947 would provide HoMedics the relief it deserves by 
refunding the erroneously collected duties. The estimated duty refund 
amount is $108,931, plus interest. This amount is well below the 
$500,000 per year threshold allowed for inclusion in a miscellaneous 
trade bill. Customs erred and HoMedics has no administrative remedy. 
H.R. 1947 is non-controversial in that it is fully consistent with HQ 
962340, dated July 6, 2000.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                                Renee Chiuchiarelli
                                       Logistics Compliance Manager

                                 

                                                     HoMedics, Inc.
                                  Commerce Township, Michigan 48390
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    HoMedics Inc. (``HoMedics''), a privately held company 
headquartered in Commerce Township, Michigan, appreciates this 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1948, a bill to provide for the 
reliquidation of certain entries of AquaScape Relaxation Bubble Lights. 
Founded in 1987, HoMedics established a reputation as the leading 
manufacturer of back and body massagers. The company expanded it 
personal healthcare and wellness line of products to include hot/cold 
compression wraps, footbaths, dental products, sensory relaxation 
systems, magnetic therapy products, and a wide range of personal care 
products. Today, HoMedics manufactures and markets the most complete 
line of home personal healthcare, wellness, and relaxation products 
sold in America.
    HoMedics strongly supports H.R. 1948, which would provide necessary 
relief by directing Customs to refund erroneously collected higher 
duties on the AquaScape Relaxation Bubble Lights imported by HoMedics.
    The Aquascape consists of a clear plastic tube filled with water 
that is mounted on a base. An air pump in the base creates bubbles. The 
base holds a 10 or 20-watt light bulb that shines through a rotating 
color wheel. The colors on the wheel are red, blue, green, and yellow. 
The light, which is of a very low-powered illumination, is distorted by 
the bubbles and changes colors as it is filtered through the tube.
    The AquaScape comes in nine model types (the 100 series, 300 
series, and 500 series). All model numbers are materially identical, 
varying only in the height (20 inches through 51 inches) and shape of 
the clear plastic container holding the water. The purpose of the 
AquaScape is to add peaceful tranquility to a room.
    The product is properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under subheading 8543.89.96, 
as other electrical machines and apparatus, dutiable at 2.6% ad 
valorem. HTS 8543.89.96 covers: Electrical machines and apparatus, 
having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in 
this chapter; parts thereof: Other machines and apparatus: Other: 
Other: Other: Other.
    Customs issued to Homedics an adverse New York Ruling Letter, NY 
G80198, dated Aug. 15, 2000 stating that the AquaScape is a ``lamp,'' 
classified under subheading 9405.40.80, HTSUS, dutiable at 3.9% ad 
valorem. This subheading covers: Lamps and lighting fittings including 
searchlights and spotlights and parts thereof, not elsewhere specified 
or included; illuminated signs, illuminated nameplates and the like, 
having a permanently fixed light source, and parts thereof not 
elsewhere specified or included: Other electric lamps and light 
fittings: Other.
    However, past court cases have held that a decorative article that 
uses a limited amount of light to illuminate itself and does not 
provide any significant illumination or substantial use as an 
illuminating article to the surrounding area, or where lighting of the 
surrounding space is only incidental to the decorative effect, cannot 
be classified as a lamp and is classified as an electrical apparatus. 
See Ross Products, Inc. v. United States, 433 F.2d 804 (C.C.P.A. 1970); 
New York Merchandise Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. Int'l Trade 200 
(1981); L. Batlin & Son, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 996 (Cust. Ct. 1972), 
aff'd, 487 F.2d 916 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The low-watt bulb in the AquaScape 
produces only enough light to illuminate the article itself as a 
decorative effect, but does not provide enough light for any other 
purpose.
    A request for reconsideration was filed with Headquarters. 
Headquarters issued an adverse decision on July 26, 2002, in HQ 965248. 
Customs took the position that cases concerning classification under 
the Tariff Schedules of the United States (``TSUS''), the predecessor 
to the HTSUS, are not dispositive in interpreting the HTSUS. However, 
Headquarters has relied on prior TSUS cases when they supported a 
higher duty rate.
     H.R. 1948 would provide HoMedics relief that is consistent with 
judicial precedent. The estimated duty refund amount is $250,000, plus 
interest. This amount is below the $500,000 per year threshold allowed 
for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. The bill would affect only 
Homedics' AquaScape products and would have no effect on any other 
company's products.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                                Renee Chiuchiarelli
                                       Logistics Compliance Manager

                                 

                                                     HoMedics, Inc.
                                  Commerce Township, Michigan 48390
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    HoMedics Inc. (``HoMedics''), a privately held company 
headquartered in Commerce Township, Michigan, appreciates this 
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1949, a bill to provide for the 
reliquidation of certain entries of candles. Founded in 1987, HoMedics 
established a reputation as the leading manufacturer of back and body 
massagers. The company expanded it personal healthcare and wellness 
line of products to include hot/cold compression wraps, footbaths, 
dental products, sensory relaxation systems, magnetic therapy products, 
and a wide range of personal care products. Today, HoMedics 
manufactures and markets the most complete line of home personal 
healthcare, wellness, and relaxation products sold in America.
    HoMedics strongly supports H.R. 1949, which would provide necessary 
relief by directing Customs to refund erroneously collected antidumping 
duties on scented and tea light candles that were imported by HoMedics 
for some of its desk top fountains. An antidumping (AD) order has been 
in place on petroleum wax candles from China since 1986. The order 
imposes AD duties of 54.21% on covered items.
    The candles imported by HoMedics are not included within the scope 
of the order. However, Customs officers at the port of Long Beach, 
California, erroneously told HoMedics that its candles were within the 
scope of the AD order. Customs instructed HoMedics that the candles 
must be separately identified on the manufacturer's invoices and AD 
duties must paid on the value attributable to the candles. HoMedics was 
not permitted to enter its merchandise unless it paid AD duties. 
HoMedics paid AD duties from approximately March 2000 through December 
2000. Customs subsequently liquidated those entries to include AD 
duties.
    On March 28, 2000, Customs issued a ruling, NY F84932, stating that 
candles containing over 50% palm oil wax are not within the scope of 
the AD order. When HoMedics learned of the ruling, it submitted its 
scented and tea light candles to an independent laboratory for a 
content analysis. Customs Science Services, Inc. supplied its 
Laboratory Analysis Report on April 29, 2001. The report concluded that 
HoMedics' candles consisted of either 60% palm wax and 40% paraffin 
wax, or 57% palm wax and 43% paraffin wax. HoMedics submitted a copy of 
the New York ruling and the lab report to Customs. The agency stopped 
assessing AD duties on HoMedics' candles and the company's candle 
entries are now liquidated without antidumping duties.
    However, HoMedics cannot get a refund on entries that already were 
already liquidated. In Mitsubishi Electronic America, Inc. v. United 
States, 44 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1994) the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit stated that the protest statute, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514, 
excludes antidumping determinations from the list of matters that 
parties may protest to Customs. Therefore, HoMedics has no 
administrative remedy to recoup its erroneously collected AD duties.
    H.R. 1949 would provide HoMedics the relief it deserves by 
refunding the erroneously collected duties. HoMedics is not 
circumventing the AD order. None of its candles were ever subject to 
the antidumping duty order. Customs erred and HoMedics has no 
administrative remedy.
    The size of the estimated duty refund is $107,680, plus interest. 
This amount is well below the $500,000 per year threshold allowed for 
inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. H.R. 1949 is non-controversial 
because Customs agrees that the candles should be liquidated without 
antidumping duties.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                                Renee Chiuchiarelli
                                       Logistics Compliance Manager

                                 

                                             Barnes & Thornburg LLP
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the National Candle Association (``NCA''), we hereby 
submit its comments to express NCA's vigorous opposition to inclusion 
of H.R. 2473 and H.R. 1949 in the package of miscellaneous tariff 
bills. H.R. 2473 will weaken the antidumping law by amending the way in 
which the Department of Commerce calculates the ``All Others'' dumping 
margin. This would make a substantial and harmful change to the 
antidumping law by making it exceedingly difficult in a large number of 
cases for the Department of Commerce to calculate an ``All Others'' 
dumping rate for non-investigated exporters. This bill would not be 
administrable and has already attracted substantial opposition from 
U.S. manufacturers.
    The ``All Other'' rate applies to exporters that were not 
investigated and is based on the weighted average of dumping margins 
calculated for exporters that were investigated. H.R. 2473 would 
prohibit the Department of Commerce from calculating the ``All Others'' 
rate from any margins based on facts available. In many cases, this 
would effectively prohibit Commerce from calculating an ``All Others'' 
rate. This creates an administrative barrier for Commerce, and the bill 
provides no alternative method of calculating the ``All Others'' rate.
    H.R. 2473 is not a technical change, but rather a substantial 
substantive change that will weaken the antidumping law, create 
controversy and cause strong opposition from the U.S. manufacturing 
community. Congress has consistently refused to include any 
controversial measure in previous bills, such as this Technical 
Corrections and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension bill. A ``non-
controversial'' miscellaneous trade bill is not an appropriate vehicle 
to make legislative changes to trade remedy laws.
    H.R. 1949 proposes to reliquidate entries of imports of candles 
without the assessment of antidumping duties or interest and a refund 
of any antidumping duties and interest which were previously paid on 
such entries. The subject imports that entered the United States in the 
year 2000 are subject to a 65% antidumping duty. The respondents 
appealed the Department of Commerce decision to impose a 65% 
antidumping duty on imports on candles from China. The Court of 
International Trade affirmed the decision of the Department of 
Commerce, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed 
the respondent's appeal. H.R. 1949 is an attempt to overrule the 
decisions of the Department of Commerce, the Court of International 
Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This bill is 
controversial, not administrable, and blatantly operates retroactively. 
H.R. 1949 has no place in a ``non-controversial'' miscellaneous trade 
bill.
                                                 Randolph J. Stayin
                         Counsel to the National Candle Association
                                 ______
                                 
National Candle Association

Written Comments to H.R. 2473--Change and Method for Calculating ``All 
    Other'' Rates, Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
    Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills

SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET

List of witnesses to the September 2, 2005 submission filed by Randolph 
J. Stayin on behalf of the National Candle Association:

On behalf of the National Candle Association:

Ms. Valerie B. Cooper
Executive Vice President
National Candle Association

Counsel to the National Candle Association:
                                           Randolph J. Stayin, Esq.
                                             Barnes & Thornburg LLP

                                 

                      Cheese Importers Association of America, Inc.
                                           New York, New York 10022
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the members of the Cheese Importer Association of 
America, Inc., I am writing to express our support for H.R. 2003, and 
to request its inclusion in the forthcoming Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    This bill repeals the 100 percent tariff on Roquefort cheese and 
will provide relief to a number of our members, but especially Lactalis 
American Group, which has carried most of the weight imposed by this 
substantial tariff. As you know, the U.S. imposed a series of 
retaliatory tariffs against the EU in 1999 in response to the EU's 
failure to comply with the WTO decision on beef hormones. Roquefort 
cheese was on this list, and due to the inaction on the part of the EU, 
Lactalis and other importers continue to suffer the penalty. Given the 
likelihood that this tariff will be in place for the foreseeable 
future, we support congressional action to provide relief to these 
companies who desperately need it.
    Roquefort is a unique, premium cheese which is enjoyed by consumers 
all over the world. Our members would like to bring this product to 
American consumers at a competitive price, but are unable to do so 
because of the costs imposed by the tariff. We hope you agree that this 
issue should be rectified by including H.R. 2003 in the Miscellaneous 
Trade Bill.
Chairman Shaw, thank you for considering our views and for you support 
    of free and open trade.
            Very truly yours,
                                                     Thomas G. Toto
                                                          President

                                 

                              International Dairy Foods Association
                                               Washington, DC 20005
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) whose membership 
includes over 500 companies involved in the processing, manufacturing, 
and marketing of dairy foods supports, the inclusion of H.R. 2003 in 
the miscellaneous tariff bill.
    This bill repeals the 100 percent tariff on Roquefort cheese and 
will provide relief to our member company, Lactalis American Group, 
which has carried most of the weight imposed by this substantial 
tariff. Lactalis American Group is a U.S.-based subsidiary of Groupe 
Lactalis, the largest dairy group in Europe and a global player in all 
facets of the dairy industry. In addition to the domestic production at 
five U.S.-based production facilities where Lactalis employs 
approximately 1,400 U.S. citizens and manufactures products valued at 
$700 million, the company is also involved in the importation of 
Roquefort cheese.
    As you know, the U.S. imposed a series of retaliatory tariffs 
against Europe Union (EU) products in 1999 in response to its failure 
to comply with the World Trade Organization decision which ruled that 
the EU's ban on hormone--treated beef was illegal. Roquefort cheese was 
on this list, and due to the inaction on the part of the EU, Lactalis 
continues to suffer the penalty.
    Given the likelihood that the 100 percent duty on Roquefort cheese 
will be in place for the foreseeable future, IDFA supports H.R. 2003 
which would eliminate this punitive tariff. While this change would 
facilitate the importation of greater amounts of Roquefort cheese, it 
would not disadvantage U.S. cheese producers because by virtue of U.S. 
trademark laws, all Roquefort cheese must be produced according to 
strict standards in Roquefort-sur-Soulzon, a French town that sits 
above the limestone caves in which the cheese is cured and stored. 
Furthermore, the other cheeses with which it competes are almost 
entirely other European cheeses that are imported without the tariff to 
which Roquefort is subject.
    Chairman Shaw, thank you for considering our views and for your 
support of free and open trade.
                                                      Connie Tipton
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                      Lactalis American Group, Inc.
                                            Buffalo, New York 14220
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    This letter is to express our company's strong support for H.R. 
2003, a bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to remove the 100 
percent tariff on Roquefort cheese. We strongly believe that it should 
be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill that will be considered by 
the Trade Subcommittee.
    Lactalis American Group, Inc. is a U.S.-based subsidiary of Groupe 
Lactalis, the largest dairy group in Europe and a global player in all 
facets of the dairy industry. In addition to the domestic production at 
five U.S.-based production facilities where Lactalis employs 
approximately 1,400 U.S. citizens and manufactures products valued at 
$700 million, the company is also involved in the importation of 
numerous Lactalis-owned brands from Europe.
    In 1999, pursuant to the European Union's failure to comply with 
the WTO's decision on beef hormone, the USTR imposed 100 percent ad 
valorem duties on a list of goods from all EU countries (with the 
exception of the U.K., which supported the U.S. position). One of these 
products was Roquefort cheese, which is a world-renowned cheese of the 
highest quality and one of which Lactalis American Group imports the 
overwhelming share into the U.S. Therefore, our company has, to a far 
greater degree that any other firm, borne the burden of this tariff. 
Roquefort is an important complement to the full line of cheeses that 
we produce in the United States because it is the premium offering that 
many retailers, restaurants and consumers desire. I believe that if we 
could market Roquefort at a more competitive price, this would 
significantly increase demand and distribution for our domestically 
produced products, by strengthening the association of our American-
made cheeses with the quality, authenticity, and cachet of Roquefort.
    Over the past five years, Lactalis American Group, Inc. has 
consolidated and substantially strengthened our products' position, and 
concurrently has stabilized and improved the productivity of our 
American manufacturing facilities. We wish to continue in this 
direction by emphasizing the world-class quality of our American-made 
cheeses through several strategies; importantly, through association 
with our Roquefort cheese. With the current tariff in place, this is 
not possible.
    Because the EU has shown no intention of complying with the WTO 
decision, we have labored under the weight of this crippling 100 
percent tariff for more than six years, without benefit to the United 
States' position. I fear that absent action by the Congress we will 
live with this tariff permanently. This is why we support H.R. 2003, 
which would repeal this tariff and offer us the chance to unlock the 
potential of our full line of cheeses, including those produced at our 
five U.S. facilities.
    I do not believe there are any domestic U.S. interests that will be 
harmed by the repeal of this tariff, given Roquefort's unique position 
in the market and the fact that none is produced in the U.S.; and in 
light of the benefits that I believe will be experienced by our 
domestic products (and as a result, our plants and employees) this is a 
sound change as a matter of trade and economic policy.
    We are represented on this matter by The Tipton Group, a 
Washington, DC-based consulting firm, which has also filed comments on 
this legislation. I would refer you to their submission for any further 
information, and invite you to contact them or myself if we can be of 
assistance as you consider which legislation should be included in the 
Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    Thank you for your consideration.
                                                       Erick Boutry
                                President & Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                             The Tipton Group, Inc.
                                               Washington, DC 20003
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    This letter is in response to the Trade Subcommittee's request for 
comments on technical corrections to U.S. trade laws on behalf of my 
client, Lactalis American Group. We would like to register our strong 
support for H.R. 2003, which is on the list of bills under 
consideration for inclusion in the upcoming Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    Lactalis American Group is a U.S.-based subsidiary of Groupe 
Lactalis, the largest dairy group in Europe and a global player in all 
facets of the dairy industry. In addition to the domestic production at 
five U.S.-based production facilities where Lactalis employs 
approximately 1,400 U.S. citizens and manufactures products valued at 
$700 million, the company is also involved in the importation of 
numerous Lactalis-owned brands from Europe. Among these is Roquefort 
cheese.
    H.R. 2003 addresses an unintended, but most unfortunate consequence 
of our long-running dispute with the European Union regarding the EU's 
ban on U.S beef. The World Trade Organization ruled, first in 1997 and 
then again on appeal in 1998, that the EU ban violated WTO rules 
established under the Uruguay Round Agreement. On July 27, 1999 the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published a Federal Register 
notice detailing the imposition of 100 percent ad valorem duties on 
certain articles totaling $116.8 million, the retaliation level 
authorized by the WTO in response to the EU's failure to comply with 
its decision. One of these products was Roquefort. More than six years 
have passed since the inception of the retaliation and little, if any, 
progress has been made on behalf of U.S. cattlemen whose access to the 
EU beef market has been denied. Meanwhile, Lactalis, and other 
companies like it, have struggled under the weight of this substantial 
tariff. Lactalis imports the overwhelming majority of Roquefort cheese, 
so this firm--almost by itself--has borne the crippling burden of this 
tariff. Due to the inaction on the part of the EU, this company may 
live with this tariff in perpetuity, unless Congress provides relief.
    In 2000, after it became clear that the EU had no intention of 
coming into compliance with the WTO decision, the Congress passed, as 
part of the Trade Development Act of 2000, a provision known as 
carousel retaliation, under which the USTR is required to rotate new 
items onto a retaliation list every 180 days if it is apparent that the 
losing party is not taking any steps to comply with the WTO decision. 
While this tool, which was conceived specifically for use against the 
EU because of its unique policy-making apparatus, could force the EU 
into a more conciliatory position, the USTR has thus far declined to 
implement it. The failure to implement carousel has left Lactalis
    American Group paying the burdensome 100 percent tariff for over 
six years. Given the lack of alternative options to obtain any relief 
from the 100 percent tariff, we strongly support legislative action to 
repeal this tariff. This is the purpose of H.R. 2003. The bill simply 
eliminates the retaliatory tariff specifically and only on Roquefort. 
It does not reduce the authorized retaliation level, and USTR could 
apply the tariff to another product
    While this change would facilitate the importation of greater 
amounts of Roquefort cheese, it would not disadvantage U.S. cheese 
producers because by virtue of U.S. trademark laws, all Roquefort 
cheese must be produced according to strict standards in Roquefort-sur-
Soulzon, a French town that sits above the limestone caves in which the 
cheese is cured and stored. Furthermore, the other cheeses with which 
it competes are almost entirely other European cheeses that are 
imported without the tariff to which Roquefort is subject.
    Officials at Lactalis American Group strongly believe that the 
availability of Roquefort at a more competitive price will be a 
salutary influence on the sales of the many cheeses which it produces 
in its U.S. production facilities. Today, retailers want to work with 
cheese producers who can offer a complete line of chesses, from the 
low-cost commodity offerings to the more premium high-end products. 
Lactalis has positioned Roquefort as its premium offering, but its 
ability to execute on this strategy is severely hampered by Roquefort's 
uncompetitive price--which results from the 100 percent tariff. They 
feel confident that if they could offer Roquefort at a more reasonable 
price point, this would lead to increased sales of the other 
domestically produced cheeses it offers for sale. Thus, the U.S.-based 
plants and employees would feel the benefit of lifting this tariff.
    Finally, Roquefort itself has a remarkably progressive position 
within Europe on one of the key agricultural trade disputes between the 
U.S. and EU--that of geographical indicators. In opposition to the EU's 
claim that the right to certain trade names should belong to a region, 
Roquefort has always abided by the trademark and patent laws of each 
country in which its products are sold; and it has been vocal 
proponents of the superiority of this approach. I am told that during 
his time as USTR, Robert Zoellick himself cited Roquefort as a positive 
example when arguing the U.S. position with his European counterparts. 
We hope that this would be recognized by U.S. policymakers and taken 
into consideration as they contemplate current and future retaliation 
against the EU.
    Though Lactalis American Group is the subsidiary of a foreign 
parent, they are clearly the type of company we should welcome given 
their high-level of capital investment in U.S. facilities and people. 
They should not have to suffer the penalty of this tariff forever, 
which we fear will be the case absent some action by the Congress (or 
some extremely unlikely about-face on the part of the EU). H.R. 2003 
would give this great company a chance to be an even stronger 
competitor and realize the full potential of its domestic offerings, by 
having a world-renowned premium product, Roquefort cheese, which they 
can offer without the considerable costs imposed by the 100 percent 
tariff it currently carries.
    We believe it is just the type of bill which the Miscellaneous 
Trade Bill is intended to move through the legislative process. Please 
let us know if you have any questions, or would like additional 
information, as you make final decisions about which bills will be 
included in the MTB. Thank you for your consideration.

                                                  E. Linwood Tipton
                                                     Chairman & CEO

                                 

                                      Harley-Davidson Motor Company
                                         Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, I respectfully request 
the inclusion of H.R. 2015 in the legislation you are drafting to 
suspend temporarily the duty on certain imports. H.R. 2015, sponsored 
by Representatives Paul Ryan and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, would suspend 
the duty on wheel assembly and truing machines that Harley-Davidson 
Motor Company uses in the production of its motorcycles.
    These machines are a critical part of our wheel assembly process 
and greatly improve the quality of our wheels and therefore the safety 
of our customers. These machines are used to assemble laced-spoke 
wheels. During assembly, wheels must be ``trued'' to ensure that they 
are perfectly straight and the circle of the rim is perfectly round. If 
this is not done correctly, the motorcycle will not track in straight 
line. The hand assembly of these wheels is a very time consuming, 
inefficient and tedious task.
    The machines identified in H.R. 2015 automate the process of 
assembling and truing wheels. This improves our company's productivity, 
frees up employees to perform greater value added tasks, and provides a 
high quality and safer assembly of our laced-spoke wheels.
    There are no domestic manufacturers of wheel assembly and truing 
machines for motorcycle wheels. However, MACH1 of Epagny, France, 
produces high quality wheel assembly and truing machines that meet 
Harley-Davidson Motor Company's standards. We have used these machines 
in our motorcycle assembly plants for many years.
    However, as the motorcycle industry has grown in recent years, the 
Motor Company has been investing in numerous capital improvement 
projects. One of these projects is to purchase additional wheel truing 
machines.
    Therefore, to assist Harley-Davidson Motor Company in purchasing 
additional wheel truing machines, the Motor Company asks you to include 
the legislative language of H.R. 2015 in the miscellaneous duty 
suspension legislation you are developing.
            Sincerely
                                                    Wayne T. Curtin
                                                           Director
                                                 Government Affairs

                                 

                                                           Chemtura
                                      Middlebury, Connecticut 06749
                                                  September 2, 2005
David Kavanaugh
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

    Re: HR 1782 and 2056
    Chemtura is strongly opposed to the proposal to remove duties on 
the following products:

      Palmitic Acid (HR 1782)
      Palm fatty acid distillates (HR 2056)

    Chemtura manufactures approximately 200MM lb/yr of various fatty 
acids, including palm derived and coconut derived products, in our 
Memphis, Tennessee plant. This product is chemically converted into 
amides, stearates and esters which are used as additives for plastics 
and for other markets, and also sold for use as chemical intermediates 
in the U.S. Chemtura is one of four U.S. based manufacturers of these 
products.
    Competition from low cost, Asian sources has put a significant 
strain on U.S. based Oleochemicals producers. Elimination of this duty 
into the U.S. will result in reduced production and employment at the 
Memphis facility.
    In addition, Biodiesel legislation offering subsidies for 
production of biodiesel in the U.S. already has significantly impacted 
profitability of the Oleochemicals sector by introducing new supplies 
of glycerin, a byproduct of both biodiesel and fatty acid manufacture. 
This new supply of glycerin has reduced the selling price of this 
byproduct as much as 40% over the last 12 months, unfavorably impacting 
the cost of fatty acid production.
    While the biodiesel legislation has been approved for the greater 
good of the country's energy position, the combined impact of 
elimination of the duties and biodiesel will significantly impact our 
ability to continue operating and could result in the loss of over 325 
U.S. jobs at our Memphis facility.
            Sincerely,
                                                Elizabeth Thomasino
                                       Manager, Imports and Customs

                                                      Lloyd N. Moon
                    Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs

                                 

                                       Beaver Manufacturing Company
                                           Mansfield, Georgia 30055
                                                    August 31, 2005
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    The following statement is submitted on behalf of Beaver 
Manufacturing Company in response to the Subcommittee's request for 
public comment in connection with proposed legislation currently under 
consideration before the Subcommittee to temporarily suspend duty on 
certain products.
    Beaver Manufacturing Company, located at 12 Ed Needham Drive, 
Mansfield, Georgia, wishes to express its strong support for HR 2096, 
which is intended to extend the suspension of duty on certain high 
tenacity rayon filament yarn. Thanks to a temporary duty suspension 
established through the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act of 2004, high tenacity rayon filament yarn is duty-free through 
December 31, 2006. If not for this suspension, high tenacity yarn of 
viscose rayon would be subject to a duty of 10% for single yarn and 
9.1% for cabled yarn, also known as cord. HR 2096 will extend the 
elimination of this duty through December 2008.
    Beaver Manufacturing Company supplies quality industrial yarns 
primarily for the mechanical rubber goods industry, particularly the 
hose industry. Beaver supplies polyester, PVA, nylon, rayon and aramid 
fibers to its customers. Beaver purchases these yarns from foreign and 
domestic sources and sells them to its customers after performing one 
or more treatments on the yarn it purchases. Depending on the 
customer's needs and the ultimate application for the product, Beaver 
may twist, rewind, repackage and/or treat the yarn with a finish. The 
premier hose yarn converter in North America, Beaver provides a wide 
variety of treatments for both adhesion and package integrity.
    For several years now, there has been no U.S. producer of high 
tenacity rayon filament yarn. Beaver purchases 100% of its high 
tenacity rayon filament yarn needs from Cordenka GmbH, located in 
Obernburg, Germany. After treating the rayon yarn in one of the manners 
described above, Beaver sells the rayon yarn to hose producers, such as 
Parker-Hannifin, Mark IV Automotive, Gates and Goodyear. Beaver also 
sells other fibers to these same companies, but rayon is the preferred 
fiber, despite its higher cost, for the particular applications in 
which rayon is still used by these companies. Rayon is used in 
situations where a customer needs superior heat resistance and/or 
dimensional stability, such as in automotive hoses. Because of the 
limited applications in which rayon remains the preferred fiber, Beaver 
does not expect to see an increase in its sales of rayon yarn based on 
the continued elimination of the duty on rayon. Rather, extending the 
duty suspension on high tenacity rayon yarn will help Beaver to keep 
costs down, enabling it to continue to provide a quality product at an 
acceptable price.
    In conclusion, we urge you to continue the duty suspension on high 
tenacity rayon filament yarn, which is critically important to Beaver.
    We would be happy to provide you with additional information or 
details as necessary. Please contact the undersigned.
                                                     William Loeble
                                            Chief Operating Officer

                                 

                                               Clariant Corporation
                                       Martin, South Carolina 02816
                                                    August 24, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 LHOB
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20015

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing on behalf of the Textile, Leather, Paper Division of 
Clariant Corporation to object to the suspension of duty on Astacin 
Finish PUM, identified in H.R. 2117, introduced by Representative 
Weller on May 5, 2005. The tradename is the only identification of the 
substance for which duty suspension is being requested. It is our 
belief that this chemical, in use, competes against the Clariant 
product, Melio 11R22, manufactured at our Martin, S.C., facility. 
Clariant is a major manufacturer of specialty chemicals and employs 
approximately 180 personnel at the Martin Site. A suspension of duty 
would negatively impact our domestic manufacturing capability.
    Clariant opposes the granting of temporary duty suspension for the 
compound named in H.R. 2117.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Dan Packer
                                  Director of Technical Development

                                 

                                                  Sun Chemical Corp
                                             Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
                                                    August 23, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Committee Members:

    We strongly oppose the elimination of import duties on the 
following pigment:
    3204.17.90     Pigment Yellow 139
    CI Number 56298     Class: Isoindoline
    Hue: Reddish Yellow     CAS: 36888-99-0
    Use: Inks, Plastics & Paint
    Sun Chemical produces CI Pigment Yellow 139 in the United States at 
the Bushy Park plant and any suspension of import duty would put us at 
a competitive disadvantage with foreign producers.
                                                  Edwin B. Faulkner
                      Director--Product Management & Communications

                                 

                                               Lubrizol Corporation
                                              Wickliffe, Ohio 44092
                                                    August 17, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Re: H.R. 2145

Dear Committee members:

    The Lubrizol Corporation (``Lubrizol'') is a long-standing 
specialty chemical manufacture that has produced TMQ since the mid-
1930's. The removal of the import duty results in Lubrizol being at a 
disadvantage with our foreign competitors.
            Sincerely,
                                                     David L. Cowen
                                            Manager, Public Affairs

                                 

                                                           Chemtura
                                      Middlebury, Connecticut 06749
                                                  September 2, 2005
David Kavanaugh
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

    Re: HR 2146
    Chemtura is strongly opposed to the proposal to temporarily remove 
duties on the following product:

      4-aminodiphenylamine (Chemtura's product names are UBOB 
and PDA) as requested in HR 2146.

    Chemtura manufactures approximately 30MM lb/yr in our Geismar, 
Louisiana plant. This product is chemically converted into a family of 
rubber chemical antiozonants (Chemtura trade name Flexzones), or sold 
for use as a chemical intermediate in the U.S. Chemtura is the only 
U.S. manufacturer of this product.
    Elimination of this duty into the U.S. would unfairly advantage 
European manufacturers, while Chemtura would be disadvantaged by being 
required to pay duties when importing into Europe. The EU import duty 
is 6.5 %, the same as the current U.S. rate when importing this 
material. Further, Chemtura will lose significant market share, 
resulting in reduced production and employment at the Geismar facility. 
In addition Chemtura is required by new regulations to invest 
significant funds for environmental protection, where some of our 
competitors in other regions are not being held to the same standards. 
If Chemtura faces lower priced competition, it may not be able to make 
those investments and will be forced to halt production.
    The proposal to reduce the duties is being made by a major European 
based competitor of Chemtura, and is clearly designed to put Chemtura 
at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
            Sincerely,
                                                Elizabeth Thomasino
                                       Manager, Imports and Customs

                                                      Lloyd N. Moon
                    Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs

                                 

                                      R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc.
                                         Norwalk, Connecticut 06855
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to express the strong opposition of R.T. Vanderbilt 
Company, Inc. (``RTV'') to H.R. 2147, the duty suspension bill now 
pending before your subcommittee, that would temporarily suspend the 
current 6.5 percent import duty on VULKANOX MB. RTV produces in its 
chemical plant in Murray, Kentucky a directly competitive product 
called VANOX' MTI. The product name of VULKANOX MB, as 
indicated in H.R. 2147, is 2-Mercaptobenzimidazole. The product name of 
VANOX ' MTI is 2-Mercapto-4(5)-methylbenzimidazole. The only 
chemical difference between the two competing products is a methyl 
group in VANOX MTI. However, both products have the same use. In fact 
the entire VULKANOX line of antioxidant products is primarily designed 
to afford protection from oxygen, heat, and unorientated crack 
formation. I am also attaching the first page of our ``Material Safety 
Data Sheet'' for VANOX MTI (also available at our website, 
www.rtvanderbilt.com), which provides further information.
    RTV sells VANOX MTI for use in the rubber and plastics markets as a 
synergistic antioxidant that greatly improves the performance of the 
other antioxidants with which it is combined in order to protect 
polymers against high heat, oxygen and steam. We have frequently 
competed head to head for sales with VULKANOX MB in both Europe and the 
United States. For example, we have recently competed against VULKANOX 
MB with our VANOX MTI product at the accounts of Michelin Tire and 
Rhein Chemie.VANOX MTI is critically important to our Murray, Kentucky 
facility, where we employ about 110 people. Although we produce several 
other products at that plant, VANOX MTI is one of the most important in 
terms of investment, revenue stream, profitability, and employment. 
Thus, if the duty suspension bill is enacted into law, it could 
jeopardize the economics of our entire plant. RTV currently operates a 
second chemical manufacturing plant in Bethel, Connecticut. However, 
if, as we expect, we sustain a significant loss of sales of VANOX MTI 
as a result of the duty suspension, we would have to seriously evaluate 
whether we could continue to operate two plants. In other words, it 
could become necessary for us to consolidate our operations at one 
plant and close the other one. Thus, elimination of the duty on 
VULKANOX MB threatens to undermine the economics of our current 
business model and would have drastic effects on employment, 
investment, and profitability.
    VULKANOX MB is a registered trademark of, and is produced in Europe 
by, Bayer AG. It is marketed in the United States by Lanxess 
Corporation, which is a U.S. subsidiary of a German company, Lanxess 
AG. Lanxess AG is a spinoff of Bayer AG. We are also aware of four 
other foreign producers of chemically equivalent products to VULKANOX 
MB that are located in India (Finornic Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Yasho 
Industries Pvt. Ltd.) and China (Puyang Willing Chemicals Co., Ltd. and 
Qingdao Rubber Chemicals Co., Ltd.). Thus, this duty suspension bill 
would greatly increase the threat to our company by providing a 
significant competitive advantage to numerous foreign producers.
    RTV is the only company that makes a product in the United States 
that competes directly with VULKANOX MB or its chemical equivalents 
imported from India and China. Because the chemical composition of the 
domestic product that competes with VULKANOX MB is very similar, they 
compete mainly on the basis of price. Thus, eliminating the current 6.5 
percent import duty will provide a significant competitive advantage to 
Lanxess AG and its U.S. subsidiary and to the Indian and Chinese 
producers and their importers over our competing product. Moreover, we 
expect that the International Trade Commission's report to the 
Committee will show a significant loss in revenue to the U.S. Treasury 
through the elimination of this duty.
    Quite frankly, we do not understand why this legislation is needed, 
and its sponsor has not provided an explanation since he introduced it. 
RTV has ample capacity in its Kentucky plant to supply the foreseeable 
needs of customers in the U.S. Thus, there is no shortage of domestic-
origin products, so the only result of the legislation would be 
windfall profits at our expense to the German, Indian and Chinese 
suppliers and importers.
    It is also ironic that the European Union currently maintains a 6.5 
percent ad valorem duty on our own exports of VANOX MTI to the EU. 
Thus, although the import tariff playing field is level right now 
because the EU and the U.S. maintain the identical duty, the duty 
suspension would tilt that field totally in favor of Lanxess. There is 
no reason why Congress should act in such an unfair way towards a 
domestic producer.
    For all of these reasons, on behalf of RTV, we respectfully request 
that the House of Representatives not enact H.R. 2147.
                                                          J. Denaro
                                    Vice-President, Treasurer & CFO
                                 ______
                                 
    *Because of it final drying process Vanox ZMTI is not granular like 
Vulkanox ZMB 2/C5 and is therefore much easier to disperse

      Mercapto identifies the SH present
      Thione: identifies the C=S present
      Benzimidazole: identifies that there in no methyl group 
(CH3) when it is identified elsewhere in the chemical description
      Toluimidazole: identifies that there is a methyl group 
present when it is not identified elsewhere in the chemical description

                                 

                                               Lubrizol Corporation
                                              Wickliffe, Ohio 44092
                                                    August 17, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Re: H.R. 2151

Dear Committee members:
    The Lubrizol Corporation (``Lubrizol'') is a long-standing 
specialty chemical manufacture that has produced a chemical equivalent 
(same CAS number) to Vulkacit MOZ/SG and MOZ/LG since the 1950's. The 
removal of the import duty results in Lubrizol being at a disadvantage 
with our foreign competitors.
            Sincerely,
                                                     David L. Cowen
                                            Manager, Public Affairs

                                 

                                      R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc.
                                         Norwalk, Connecticut 06855
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to express the strong opposition of R.T. Vanderbilt 
Company, Inc. (``RTV'') to H.R. 2152, the duty suspension bill now 
pending before your subcommittee, that would temporarily suspend the 
current 6.5 percent import duty on VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5. RTV produces in 
its chemical plant in Murray, Kentucky a virtually identical product, 
except for an immaterial difference in zinc content, called 
VANOX' ZMTI Antioxidant. The attached table clearly 
demonstrates the equivalency of VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5 and VANOX ZMTI. For 
example, the two products have the same chemical formula, structure, 
CAS No. and EINECS No. I am also attaching the first page of our 
``Material Safety Data Sheet'' for VANOX ZMTI (also available at our 
website, www.rtvanderbilt.com), which provides further information.
    RTV sells VANOX ZMTI for use in the rubber and plastics markets as 
a synergistic antioxidant that greatly improves the performance of the 
other antioxidants with which it is combined in order to protect 
polymers against high heat, oxygen and steam. We have frequently 
competed head to head for sales with VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5 in both Europe 
and the United States. For example, in the United States, we have 
recently competed against VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5, which was then privately 
labeled by its U.S. distributor, for the account of a rubber products 
manufacturer located in Ohio.
    VANOX ZMTI is critically important to our Murray, Kentucky 
facility, where we employ about 110 people. Although we produce several 
other products at that plant, VANOX ZMTI is by far the most important 
one in terms of investment, revenue stream, profitability, and 
employment. Thus, if the duty suspension bill is enacted into law, it 
could jeopardize the economics of our entire plant. RTV currently 
operates a second chemical manufacturing plant in Bethel, Connecticut. 
However, if, as we expect, we sustain a significant loss of sales of 
VANOX ZMTI as a result of the duty suspension, we would have to 
seriously evaluate whether we could continue to operate two plants. In 
other words, it could become necessary for us to consolidate our 
operations at one plant and close the other one. Thus, elimination of 
the duty on VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5 threatens to undermine the economics of 
our current business model and would have drastic effects on 
employment, investment, and profitability.
    VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5 is a registered trademark of, and is produced in 
Europe by, Bayer AG. It is marketed in the United States by Lanxess 
Corporation, which is a U.S. subsidiary of a German company, Lanxess 
AG. Lanxess AG is a spinoff of Bayer AG. We are also aware of four 
other foreign producers of chemically equivalent products to VULKANOX 
ZMB-2/C5 that are located in India (Finornic Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and 
Yasho Industries Pvt. Ltd.) and China (Puyang Willing Chemicals Co., 
Ltd. and Qingdao Rubber Chemicals Co., Ltd.). A U.S distributor called 
Sovereign Chemical Company of Akron, Ohio has offered a product called 
SOVCHEM' ZMTI to at least two U.S. customer accounts in 
direct competition with our VANOX ZMTI. The source of this product is 
either India or China. Thus, this duty suspension bill would greatly 
increase the threat to our company by providing a significant 
competitive advantage to numerous foreign producers
    RTV is the only company that makes a product in the United States 
that competes directly with VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5 or its chemical 
equivalents imported from India and China. Because the chemical 
composition of the products that compete with VULKANOX ZMB-2/C5 is 
identical or nearly identical, they compete mainly on the basis of 
price. Thus, eliminating the current 6.5 percent import duty will 
provide a significant competitive advantage to Lanxess AG and its U.S. 
subsidiary and to the Indian and Chinese producers and their importers 
over our competing product. Moreover, we expect that the International 
Trade Commission's report to the Committee will show a significant loss 
in revenue to the U.S. Treasury through the elimination of this duty.
    Quite frankly, we do not understand why this legislation is needed, 
and its sponsor has not provided an explanation since he introduced it. 
RTV has ample capacity in its Kentucky plant to supply the foreseeable 
needs of customers in the U.S. Thus, there is no shortage of domestic-
origin products, so the only result of the legislation would be 
windfall profits at our expense to the German, Indian and Chinese 
suppliers and importers.
    It is also ironic that the European Union currently maintains a 6.5 
percent ad valorem duty on our own exports of VANOX ZMTI to the EU. 
Thus, although the import tariff playing field is level right now 
because the EU and the U.S. maintain the identical duty, the duty 
suspension would tilt that field totally in favor of Lanxess. There is 
no reason why Congress should act in such an unfair way towards a 
domestic producer.
    For all of these reasons, on behalf of RTV, we respectfully request 
that the House of Representatives not enact H.R. 2152.
                                                          J. Denaro
                                    Vice-President, Treasurer & CFO
    *Because of it final drying process Vanox ZMTI is not granular like 
Vulkanox ZMB 2/C5 and is therefore much easier to disperse

      Mercapto identifies the SH present
      Thione: identifies the C=S present
      Benzimidazole: identifies that there in no methyl group 
(CH3) when it is identified elsewhere in the chemical description
      Toluimidazole: identifies that there is a methyl group 
present when it is not identified elsewhere in the chemical description

                                 

                                                           Chemtura
                                      Middlebury, Connecticut 06749
                                                  September 2, 2005
David Kavanaugh
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

    Re: H.R. 2172

    Chemtura is strongly opposed to the proposal to temporarily remove 
duties on the following product:

      Mercaptobenzothiazole disulfide (CAS 120-78-5) 
(Chemtura's product name is Naugard MBTS or Naugex MBTS) as requested 
in HR2172.

    Chemtura manufactures approximately 5 million pounds per year in 
our Geismar, Louisiana plant. This product is sold into the rubber 
industry as a rubber accelerant.
    Elimination of this duty into the U.S. would unfairly advantage 
European manufacturers, while Chemtura would be disadvantaged by being 
required to pay duties when importing into Europe. The EU import duty 
is 6.5 %, the same as the current U.S. rate when importing this 
material. Further, Chemtura will lose significant market share, 
resulting in reduced production and employment at the Geismar facility. 
In addition Chemtura is required by new regulations to invest 
significant funds for environmental protection, where some of our 
competitors in other regions are not being held to the same standards. 
If Chemtura faces lower priced competition, it may not be able to make 
those investments and will be forced to halt production.
    The proposal to reduce the duties is being made by a major European 
based competitor of Chemtura, and is clearly designed to put Chemtura 
at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
            Sincerely,
                                                Elizabeth Thomasino
                                       Manager, Imports and Customs

                                                      Lloyd N. Moon
                    Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs

                                 

                              Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc.
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                    August 31, 2005
Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman Subcommittee on Trade House
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    We write on behalf of our client, Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, 
Inc. (``MGCA''), in response to your request for written comments on 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension bills, announced July 25, 2005 (House Ways and Means 
Committee Release No. TR-3). Specifically, we express unqualified 
support on MGCA's behalf for H.R. 2179, introduced by the Honorable 
Randy Forbes of Virginia on May 5, 2005.
    H.R. 2179, if enacted, would provide a two-year extension of the 
current temporary duty suspension on imports of hexanedioic acid, 
polymer with 1,3--benzenedimethanamine--the key ingredient in MGCA's 
packaging product, Nylon MXD6. Nylon MXD6 is a tough, transparent resin 
that affords superior protection for foods, keeping oxygen out and 
flavor and aroma in. Because of its properties, it has emerged as a 
highly regarded option for food and multi-function packaging, as well 
as other uses, in the U.S.
    By extending the temporary duty suspension on imports of the key 
ingredient in Nylon MXD6, H.R. 2179 would defray the transition costs 
associated with MGCA's plans to augment domestic manufacture of the 
product at its new MGC Advanced Polymers (``MAP'') facility in Colonial 
Heights, Virginia. Although MAP just came on-line this spring, it 
already is considering plans to increase production, as well as the 
possibility of manufacturing a new high-grade version of Nylon MXD6 
that currently must be imported. These plans, if implemented, are 
expected to more than double the number of jobs at the facility, from 
23 to 50. In addition to this direct economic benefit to Colonial 
Heights and the greater Richmond area, the expansion would benefit the 
scores of local suppliers of materials with which MAP does business. 
Likewise, MAP's U.S. customers would benefit from an increased and more 
readily available supply and variety of product. MGCA and MAP 
anticipate that H.R. 2179 would have only a de minimis impact on 
federal revenue through the end of Fiscal Year 2009, and know of no 
domestic producer of a like product that might be harmed if the bill 
were enacted.
    Indeed, MGCA and MAP are new domestic producers that strongly 
support enactment of the bill. At a time when many manufacturers are 
moving overseas, MGCA has succeeded in establishing its new, 23-
employee MAP facility thanks not only to growing U.S. demand for Nylon 
MXD6 but also to the current temporary duty suspension which H.R. 2179 
would extend. This temporary duty suspension is helping to defray the 
cost of transitioning to domestic production. In fact, the transition 
is proving so successful that the MAP facility already is considering 
plans to increase its number of employees to 30 in order to expand 
production. Beyond these immediate plans, MAP also is contemplating 
domestic production of its new high-grade version of Nylon MXD6--a move 
that would create an additional 20 jobs in Colonial Heights, bringing 
the total number of employees at the plant to 50. This would mean that 
the facility will have more than doubled its workforce in just its 
first four years of operation.
    As with MAP's initial start-up, the relief afforded by the 
temporary duty suspension is an important part of MAP's future 
expansion plans. The suspension is currently set to expire after 
December 31, 2006. By extending the duty suspension to the end of 2008, 
H.R. 2179 would help the company recoup some of the costs of beginning 
domestic manufacture of its high-grade product.
    Importantly, the anticipated benefits of H.R. 2179 would come with 
little or no negative impact on federal revenue. We estimate that 
federal revenues over the next five fiscal years, if the ordinary rate 
of duty were to apply, would be as follows: $410,000 in Fiscal Year 
2005; $137,000 in Fiscal Year 2006; $68,000 in Fiscal Year 2007; 
$68,000 in Fiscal Year 2008; and $34,000 in Fiscal Year 2009. These 
steady, significant reductions in projected duties from year to year 
are largely the result of MGCA's switch to domestic manufacturing at 
its MAP facility. As MAP supplies more and more of the domestic demand 
for Nylon MXD6, there will be less and less imported from abroad. Also, 
it should be noted that the projections for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 
are entirely theoretical--in reality, no duties will be paid in those 
years because of the currently existing temporary duty suspension that 
took effect in mid-December, 2004, and that expires at the end of 2006.
    We are aware of no domestic producer of a like product, and are 
aware of no one who might be harmed by the two-year extension of 
temporary duty suspension proposed in H.R. 2179. To the contrary, MGCA 
and its MAP facility are domestic producers and employers that would be 
helped by enactment of the bill. H.R. 2179 would also indirectly 
benefit the MAP facility's customers, which are located in Virginia and 
throughout the United States. Companies like Westvaco in Low Moor, 
Virginia; Honeywell in Chester, Virginia--as well as Owens-Illinois in 
Ohio and South Carolina, Ball Corporation in New York, Gunze Plastics & 
Engineering in Kansas, and Crown Cork & Seal in Mississippi--all would 
benefit from MAP's domestic expansion plans, and those plans would be 
facilitated in part by enactment of H.R. 2179. Similarly, MAP purchases 
products and services from scores of Virginia-based vendors (66 at last 
count), many of which are small or medium-sized businesses, and all of 
which would undoubtedly benefit from MAP's proposed expansion.
    Because of its anticipated domestic benefits, its likely de minimis 
impact on federal revenue for the next five fiscal years, and the 
absence of domestic producers of a like product that might be harmed by 
its enactment, H.R. 2179 is not only non-controversial but also a 
beneficial piece of legislation. As such, we respectfully urge that it 
be included in any miscellaneous trade legislation the Trade 
Subcommittee and the full Committee may report in the 109th Congress.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
                                                Simeon M. Kriesberg

                                                   Jeffrey H. Lewis

                                 

                                      Velsicol Chemical Corporation
                                           Rosemont, Illinois 60018
                                                  September 2, 2005
Congressman Clay Shaw
House Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    We are writing to oppose the inclusion of H.R. 2221 in the 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bill now being considered by the 
Committee. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, with headquarters in 
Rosemont, Illinois, has a long standing history as a solid and 
responsible American chemical company, with manufacturing facilities 
located in Chattanooga and Memphis, Tennessee, Chestertown, Maryland, 
as well as in Estonia. We produce a number of chemical products, many 
of them plasticizers. The product which is included in H.R. 2221, 
Mesamoll, is directly competitive with products which Velsicol produces 
and sells domestically in the United States, and, in other markets. We 
have experienced increased price pressure over the past several years, 
and have just discovered that a significant part of the reason for this 
is that the manufacturer of Mesamoll requested and was granted an 
import duty suspension a few years ago. We do not understand why this 
has happened, particularly in light of the fact that Mesamoll is 
primarily produced in Germany, and, Germany has not eliminated the duty 
on Velsicol's competitive product which is shipped from the United 
States. Lanxess Corporation, which again has made this request to waive 
duty, was formed from a large portion of Bayer Chemicals Corporation's 
chemical portfolio and has a high volume of sales in our country. The 
pending Bill was brought to Velsicol's attention by an industry 
analyst, at the USITC, who noted the competitiveness of our products 
and sent us a notice for comment.
    Mesamoll, CAS No. 70775-94-9, is a plasticizer used to modify 
plastics such as PVC in a variety of applications, including automotive 
parts, coated fabrics such as tarps, molded plastic items, adhesives 
and sealants, and elastomeric coatings. It is an alternative to 
phthalate plasticizers. As noted above, this product is produced by 
Lanxess in Uerdingen, Germany.
    Velsicol produces plasticizers in the United States at its 
manufacturing facilities located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and in 
Chestertown, Maryland. The Chattanooga facility has been in operation 
since 1948 and is an important economic contributor to that community, 
with 44 acres of land and 86 employees. Our facility in Chestertown was 
built in 1959 and purchased by Velsicol in 1994. It is also represents 
a significant economic asset to that area, owning 20 acres and 
employing 44 persons.
    The trade name for Velsicol's alternative to phathalate 
plasticizers is Benzoflex'. There are several different 
variations of Benzoflex technology which are competitive to Mesamoll as 
a ``phthalate-alternative'' plasticizer. The majority of Benzoflex 
products sold are blends of the following CAS number: 27138-31-4, 120-
56-9. In 2004, Velsicol's NAFTA sales of these products exceeded 
$25,000,000.00. Sales into Europe from the United States are more 
constrained due in large part to the 6.5% import duty imposed by the 
EU. Although the recent inclusion of Estonia as an EU member state 
permits sale of the Benzoflex products manufactured at the Estonian 
facility into Europe duty free, Velsicol would very much like to be 
competitively situated so that it could increase its sales into Europe 
of the Benzoflex products which are manufactured at its U.S. 
facilities.
    Frankly, we do not understand why the EU should get a ``free ride'' 
on this product when they maintain their tariffs on directly 
competitive products. It seems to us completely illogical that Congress 
would suspend a duty, based upon the request of a German company, in 
light of the fact that U.S. companies are manufacturing competitive 
products. This just does not seem right to us.
    We request that you remove this Bill from your larger package of 
duty suspension Bills. If we can provide the Committee with additional 
information, please don't hesitate to contact Velsicol's Senior 
Corporate Counsel, Elizabeth Karkula.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
                                                    Arthur R. Sigel
                                Chief Executive Officer & President

                                 

                                                           Celanese
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw Chairman,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-6348

    Celanese conditionally objects to miscellaneous tariff bill H.R. 
2226 that calls for the elimination of import duties on `` Ethylene-
vinyl acetate copolymers containing 50% by weight vinyl acetate monomer 
(CAS No. 24937-78-8) (provided for in subheading 3905.29.00)''.
    Aqueous dispersions of ethylene-vinyl acetate (VAE) copolymers 
being imported from Taiwan are a direct substitution for one of 
Celanese's large volume polymer emulsion products used in the adhesives 
industry. The Taiwan VAE aqueous dispersion directly competes with our 
domestically produced VAE dispersions over a wide range of adhesive 
applications in packaging, wood, and decorative lamination.
    Taiwan imports of aqueous dispersions of VAE are growing rapidly. 
Currently 5-10 adhesive manufacturers are importing from Taiwan, while 
5-10 additional manufacturers are evaluating the material. This is a 
direct threat to the commercial interests of Celanese's Emulsions 
Division and the livelihood of 500 U.S. citizens employed by Celanese 
at locations in Bridgewater, NJ; Dallas, TX; Enoree, SC; and Meredosia, 
IL in the manufacture and administration of our Emulsions Division. If 
the duty is suspended on imports of aqueous VAE dispersions, market 
penetration will accelerate rapidly further exacerbating the 
competitiveness of the domestic industry.
    Celanese conditionally objects to H.R. 2226 unless the material 
description in the bill is changed as follows:

      9902.07.54 . . . Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, other 
than those in aqueous dispersions, containing 50% or more by weight 
vinyl acetate monomer (CAS No. 24937-78-8) (provided for in subheading 
3905.29.00).

    Celanese appreciates the opportunity to provide comment. I would be 
pleased to provide additional information at the Committee's request.
                                                      Bob Carpenter
                                      Celanese Governmental Affairs

                                 

                                                Lanxess Corporation
                                     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275
                                                  September 6, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw Chairman,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    LANXESS Corporation would like to affirm its support for H.R. 
2226--a bill to temporarily suspend the duty on U.S. imports of certain 
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers. If implemented, this tariff 
suspension would benefit LANXESS and its industrial customers that use 
this raw material in a number of applications.
    In addition, LANXESS endorses proposed changes to the article 
description of this provision that would clarify the scope of the bill. 
The following language would be acceptable to LANXESS Corporation:

      9902.07.54 . . . Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, other 
than those in aqueous dispersions, containing 50% or more by weight 
vinyl acetate monomer (CAS No. 24937-78-8) (provided for in subheading 
3905.29.00).

    LANXESS Corporation, which was spun-off from Bayer in January 2005, 
manufactures high-quality products in the areas of chemicals, synthetic 
rubber and plastics. In 2004, LANXESS units employed about 2,100 
persons in the United States.

                                                 Jamie B. Schaeffer

                                 

                                              Sybron Chemicals Inc.
                                       Birmingham, New Jersey 08011
                                                    August 23, 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

    Sybron Chemicals Inc. strongly opposes the implementation of H.R. 
2265. H.R. 2265 would eliminate the import duty for a product group, 
which is produced on a regular basis in our production facility in 
Birmingham, NJ. The elimination of the import duty would greatly impact 
the future of the 120 employees of our production facility just under 
strong low cost competition from mostly Asian imports.
    Sybron Chemicals Inc. specializes in the production of polymer 
resins and ion exchange resins at our Birmingham, NJ production 
facility, which employs 120 people.

                                                       Ralf P. Matt
                                                          President

                                 

                                                   Purolite Company
                                    Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004
                                                  September 1, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representataives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

To whom it May Concern:

    I am the Executive Vice President of the Purolite Company and have 
been in communications with Dr. Raymond Cantrell of the U.S. 
International Trade Commission. I would like to voice my protest to 
House Bill H.R. 2266. The reason for our objection is that we are a 
manufacture of ion exchange products in Philadelphia, PA and see no 
reason why this bill should subsidize an importer when these products 
are being produced in the USA.

                                                         Don Brodie

                                 

                                              Sybron Chemicals Inc.
                                       Birmingham, New Jersey 08011
                                                    August 23, 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

    Sybron Chemicals Inc. strongly opposes the implementation of H.R. 
2266. H.R. 2266 would eliminate the import duty for a product group, 
which is the core of Sybron Chemicals Inc., production in Birmingham, 
NJ. This product group is in strong, low cost competition with imports 
from Asia, mainly China and India. The elimination of the import duty 
would greatly impact the future of the 120 employees of our production 
facility.
    Sybron Chemicals Inc. specializes in the production of polymer 
resins and ion exchange resins at our Birmingham, NJ production 
facility, which employs 120 people.

                                                       Ralf P. Matt
                                                          President

                                 

              Statement of Thomas St. Maxens, Mattel, Inc.
    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in connection 
with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding duty suspension 
proposals. Mattel strongly supports the passage of the following five 
duty suspension bills which cover certain toy-related products of 
interest to Mattel: H.R. 2285; H.R. 2286; H.R. 2287; H.R. 2288; and 
H.R. 2289.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the world's 
largest toy company with 2004 sales of $5.1 billion in over 150 
countries. Mattel has 25,000 employees, of whom 6,000 are in the United 
States.
    At the urging of the U.S. toy industry, the U.S. government agreed 
to eliminate U.S. tariffs on all toys as part of a multilateral ``zero-
for-zero'' sectoral agreement in the Uruguay Round of WTO trade 
negotiations. However, the U.S. Customs Service has classified certain 
toy-related articles of significant interest to Mattel and other U.S. 
toy companies in dutiable non-toy HTS subheadings. These five bills 
would temporarily suspend the applicable duties for these narrowly-
defined toy-related articles through December 31, 2008, with three of 
the bills providing for an extension of existing duty suspension 
provisions previously enacted as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and 
Technical Correction Act (H.R. 1047).
    As summarized below, four of the bills concern the containers in 
which certain toys are sold and/or stored. Customs has ruled that, in 
certain instances, these containers must be classified under separate 
non-toy HTS subheadings. The four container-related bills have been 
narrowly drafted to ensure that only toy-related articles would qualify 
for the duty suspensions, and the association representing U.S. 
producers of travel goods and similar articles has indicated it does 
not oppose the proposed bills.
Extensions of existing duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2285: Covers bags of a type classified under HTS 4202.92.45, 
typically clear plastic backpack--or lunchbox-type bags, for carrying 
or holding toys, imported and sold with the toys already in the bag 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.78 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2286: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed for ViewMaster-type reels 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.81 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2287: Covers the traditional ViewMaster-type viewer classified 
by Customs as an ``optical instrument'' under HTS 9013.80.90 rather 
than as a toy under Chapter 95 (existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.80 expires December 31, 2006).
New duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2288: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys, except those covered by existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.81 (see above) covering ViewMaster-type reel cases.
    H.R. 2289: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.12.80 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Mattel's views with the 
Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee.

                                 

          Statement of Louis S. Shoichet, Tara Toy Corporation
    The following statement is submitted on behalf of Tara Toy 
Corporation in response to the Subcommittee's request for public 
comment in connection with proposed legislation currently under 
consideration before the Subcommittee to temporarily suspend duty on 
certain products.
    Tara Toy Corporation strongly supports the Subcommittee's favorable 
action and passage of five bills that have been introduced for the 
purpose of providing for the temporary duty suspension for certain toy 
related products. These bills are H.R. 2285, H.R 2286, H.R 2287, H.R 
2288, and H.R. 2289.
    Tara Toy Corporation is a United States toy and toy accessory 
company, headquartered in Hauppauge, New York, and with offices located 
in New York and Florida. The company is a domestic manufacturer, 
importer and distributor of toy and toy related products, including 
specially designed cases and containers for toys and dolls. In addition 
to its domestic manufacturing operation, the company maintains an 
extensive product development and design facility in the United States 
to support the operations of the company. Merchandise manufactured and 
sold by Tara Toy is distributed throughout the United States and 
worldwide.
    Passage of the bills identified above would serve to support and 
strengthen the continued operations of the company and is of 
significant interest to Tara Toy Corporation.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Louis S. Shoichet
                                           Tompkins & Davidson, LLP
                                           New York, New York 10036
                                  On behalf of Tara Toy Corporation

                                 

              Statement of Thomas St. Maxens, Mattel, Inc.
    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in connection 
with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding duty suspension 
proposals. Mattel strongly supports the passage of the following five 
duty suspension bills which cover certain toy-related products of 
interest to Mattel: H.R. 2285; H.R. 2286; H.R. 2287; H.R. 2288; and 
H.R. 2289.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the world's 
largest toy company with 2004 sales of $5.1 billion in over 150 
countries. Mattel has 25,000 employees, of whom 6,000 are in the United 
States.
    At the urging of the U.S. toy industry, the U.S. government agreed 
to eliminate U.S. tariffs on all toys as part of a multilateral ``zero-
for-zero'' sectoral agreement in the Uruguay Round of WTO trade 
negotiations. However, the U.S. Customs Service has classified certain 
toy-related articles of significant interest to Mattel and other U.S. 
toy companies in dutiable non-toy HTS subheadings. These five bills 
would temporarily suspend the applicable duties for these narrowly-
defined toy-related articles through December 31, 2008, with three of 
the bills providing for an extension of existing duty suspension 
provisions previously enacted as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and 
Technical Correction Act (H.R. 1047).
    As summarized below, four of the bills concern the containers in 
which certain toys are sold and/or stored. Customs has ruled that, in 
certain instances, these containers must be classified under separate 
non-toy HTS subheadings. The four container-related bills have been 
narrowly drafted to ensure that only toy-related articles would qualify 
for the duty suspensions, and the association representing U.S. 
producers of travel goods and similar articles has indicated it does 
not oppose the proposed bills.
Extensions of existing duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2285: Covers bags of a type classified under HTS 4202.92.45, 
typically clear plastic backpack--or lunchbox-type bags, for carrying 
or holding toys, imported and sold with the toys already in the bag 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.78 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2286: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed for ViewMaster-type reels 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.81 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2287: Covers the traditional ViewMaster-type viewer classified 
by Customs as an ``optical instrument'' under HTS 9013.80.90 rather 
than as a toy under Chapter 95 (existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.80 expires December 31, 2006).
New duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2288: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys, except those covered by existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.81 (see above) covering ViewMaster-type reel cases.
    H.R. 2289: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.12.80 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Mattel's views with the 
Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee.

                                 

          Statement of Louis S. Shoichet, Tara Toy Corporation
    The following statement is submitted on behalf of Tara Toy 
Corporation in response to the Subcommittee's request for public 
comment in connection with proposed legislation currently under 
consideration before the Subcommittee to temporarily suspend duty on 
certain products.
    Tara Toy Corporation strongly supports the Subcommittee's favorable 
action and passage of five bills that have been introduced for the 
purpose of providing for the temporary duty suspension for certain toy 
related products. These bills are H.R. 2285, H.R 2286, H.R 2287, H.R 
2288, and H.R. 2289.
    Tara Toy Corporation is a United States toy and toy accessory 
company, headquartered in Hauppauge, New York, and with offices located 
in New York and Florida. The company is a domestic manufacturer, 
importer and distributor of toy and toy related products, including 
specially designed cases and containers for toys and dolls. In addition 
to its domestic manufacturing operation, the company maintains an 
extensive product development and design facility in the United States 
to support the operations of the company. Merchandise manufactured and 
sold by Tara Toy is distributed throughout the United States and 
worldwide.
    Passage of the bills identified above would serve to support and 
strengthen the continued operations of the company and is of 
significant interest to Tara Toy Corporation.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Louis S. Shoichet
                                           Tompkins & Davidson, LLP
                                           New York, New York 10036
                                  On behalf of Tara Toy Corporation

                                 

              Statement of Thomas St. Maxens, Mattel, Inc.
    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in connection 
with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding duty suspension 
proposals. Mattel strongly supports the passage of the following five 
duty suspension bills which cover certain toy-related products of 
interest to Mattel: H.R. 2285; H.R. 2286; H.R. 2287; H.R. 2288; and 
H.R. 2289.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the world's 
largest toy company with 2004 sales of $5.1 billion in over 150 
countries. Mattel has 25,000 employees, of whom 6,000 are in the United 
States.
    At the urging of the U.S. toy industry, the U.S. government agreed 
to eliminate U.S. tariffs on all toys as part of a multilateral ``zero-
for-zero'' sectoral agreement

in the Uruguay Round of WTO trade negotiations. However, the U.S. 
Customs Service has classified certain toy-related articles of 
significant interest to Mattel and other U.S. toy companies in dutiable 
non-toy HTS subheadings. These five bills would temporarily suspend the 
applicable duties for these narrowly-defined toy-related articles 
through December 31, 2008, with three of the bills providing for an 
extension of existing duty suspension provisions previously enacted as 
part of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Correction Act (H.R. 
1047).
    As summarized below, four of the bills concern the containers in 
which certain toys are sold and/or stored. Customs has ruled that, in 
certain instances, these containers must be classified under separate 
non-toy HTS subheadings. The four container-related bills have been 
narrowly drafted to ensure that only toy-related articles would qualify 
for the duty suspensions, and the association representing U.S. 
producers of travel goods and similar articles has indicated it does 
not oppose the proposed bills.
Extensions of existing duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2285: Covers bags of a type classified under HTS 4202.92.45, 
typically clear plastic backpack--or lunchbox-type bags, for carrying 
or holding toys, imported and sold with the toys already in the bag 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.78 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2286: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed for ViewMaster-type reels 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.81 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2287: Covers the traditional ViewMaster-type viewer classified 
by Customs as an ``optical instrument'' under HTS 9013.80.90 rather 
than as a toy under Chapter 95 (existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.80 expires December 31, 2006).
New duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2288: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys, except those covered by existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.81 (see above) covering ViewMaster-type reel cases.
    H.R. 2289: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.12.80 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Mattel's views with the 
Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee.

                                 

          Statement of Louis S. Shoichet, Tara Toy Corporation
    The following statement is submitted on behalf of Tara Toy 
Corporation in response to the Subcommittee's request for public 
comment in connection with proposed legislation currently under 
consideration before the Subcommittee to temporarily suspend duty on 
certain products.
    Tara Toy Corporation strongly supports the Subcommittee's favorable 
action and passage of five bills that have been introduced for the 
purpose of providing for the temporary duty suspension for certain toy 
related products. These bills are H.R. 2285, H.R 2286, H.R 2287, H.R 
2288, and H.R. 2289.
    Tara Toy Corporation is a United States toy and toy accessory 
company, headquartered in Hauppauge, New York, and with offices located 
in New York and Florida. The company is a domestic manufacturer, 
importer and distributor of toy and toy related products, including 
specially designed cases and containers for toys and dolls. In addition 
to its domestic manufacturing operation, the company maintains an 
extensive product development and design facility in the United States 
to support the operations of the company. Merchandise manufactured and 
sold by Tara Toy is distributed throughout the United States and 
worldwide.
    Passage of the bills identified above would serve to support and 
strengthen the continued operations of the company and is of 
significant interest to Tara Toy Corporation.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Louis S. Shoichet
                                           Tompkins & Davidson, LLP
                                           New York, New York 10036
                                  On behalf of Tara Toy Corporation

                                 
              Statement of Thomas St. Maxens, Mattel, Inc.
    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in connection 
with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding duty suspension 
proposals. Mattel strongly supports the passage of the following five 
duty suspension bills which cover certain toy-related products of 
interest to Mattel: H.R. 2285; H.R. 2286; H.R. 2287; H.R. 2288; and 
H.R. 2289.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the world's 
largest toy company with 2004 sales of $5.1 billion in over 150 
countries. Mattel has 25,000 employees, of whom 6,000 are in the United 
States.
    At the urging of the U.S. toy industry, the U.S. government agreed 
to eliminate U.S. tariffs on all toys as part of a multilateral ``zero-
for-zero'' sectoral agreement in the Uruguay Round of WTO trade 
negotiations. However, the U.S. Customs Service has classified certain 
toy-related articles of significant interest to Mattel and other U.S. 
toy companies in dutiable non-toy HTS subheadings. These five bills 
would temporarily suspend the applicable duties for these narrowly-
defined toy-related articles through December 31, 2008, with three of 
the bills providing for an extension of existing duty suspension 
provisions previously enacted as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and 
Technical Correction Act (H.R. 1047).
    As summarized below, four of the bills concern the containers in 
which certain toys are sold and/or stored. Customs has ruled that, in 
certain instances, these containers must be classified under separate 
non-toy HTS subheadings. The four container-related bills have been 
narrowly drafted to ensure that only toy-related articles would qualify 
for the duty suspensions, and the association representing U.S. 
producers of travel goods and similar articles has indicated it does 
not oppose the proposed bills.
Extensions of existing duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2285: Covers bags of a type classified under HTS 4202.92.45, 
typically clear plastic backpack--or lunchbox-type bags, for carrying 
or holding toys, imported and sold with the toys already in the bag 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.78 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2286: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed for ViewMaster-type reels 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.81 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2287: Covers the traditional ViewMaster-type viewer classified 
by Customs as an ``optical instrument'' under HTS 9013.80.90 rather 
than as a toy under Chapter 95 (existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.80 expires December 31, 2006).
New duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2288: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys, except those covered by existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.81 (see above) covering ViewMaster-type reel cases.
    H.R. 2289: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.12.80 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Mattel's views with the 
Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee.

                                 

          Statement of Louis S. Shoichet, Tara Toy Corporation
    The following statement is submitted on behalf of Tara Toy 
Corporation in response to the Subcommittee's request for public 
comment in connection with proposed legislation currently under 
consideration before the Subcommittee to temporarily suspend duty on 
certain products.
    Tara Toy Corporation strongly supports the Subcommittee's favorable 
action and passage of five bills that have been introduced for the 
purpose of providing for the temporary duty suspension for certain toy 
related products. These bills are H.R. 2285, H.R 2286, H.R 2287, H.R 
2288, and H.R. 2289.
    Tara Toy Corporation is a United States toy and toy accessory 
company, headquartered in Hauppauge, New York, and with offices located 
in New York and Florida. The company is a domestic manufacturer, 
importer and distributor of toy

and toy related products, including specially designed cases and 
containers for toys and dolls. In addition to its domestic 
manufacturing operation, the company maintains an extensive product 
development and design facility in the United States to support the 
operations of the company. Merchandise manufactured and sold by Tara 
Toy is distributed throughout the United States and worldwide.
    Passage of the bills identified above would serve to support and 
strengthen the continued operations of the company and is of 
significant interest to Tara Toy Corporation.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Louis S. Shoichet
                                           Tompkins & Davidson, LLP
                                           New York, New York 10036
                                  On behalf of Tara Toy Corporation

                                 

              Statement of Thomas St. Maxens, Mattel, Inc.
    This statement is submitted on behalf of Mattel, Inc. in connection 
with the July 25, 2005 request for public comment by the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the Committee on Ways & Means regarding duty suspension 
proposals. Mattel strongly supports the passage of the following five 
duty suspension bills which cover certain toy-related products of 
interest to Mattel: H.R. 2285; H.R. 2286; H.R. 2287; H.R. 2288; and 
H.R. 2289.
    Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel is the world's 
largest toy company with 2004 sales of $5.1 billion in over 150 
countries. Mattel has 25,000 employees, of whom 6,000 are in the United 
States.
    At the urging of the U.S. toy industry, the U.S. government agreed 
to eliminate U.S. tariffs on all toys as part of a multilateral ``zero-
for-zero'' sectoral agreement in the Uruguay Round of WTO trade 
negotiations. However, the U.S. Customs Service has classified certain 
toy-related articles of significant interest to Mattel and other U.S. 
toy companies in dutiable non-toy HTS subheadings. These five bills 
would temporarily suspend the applicable duties for these narrowly-
defined toy-related articles through December 31, 2008, with three of 
the bills providing for an extension of existing duty suspension 
provisions previously enacted as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and 
Technical Correction Act (H.R. 1047).
    As summarized below, four of the bills concern the containers in 
which certain toys are sold and/or stored. Customs has ruled that, in 
certain instances, these containers must be classified under separate 
non-toy HTS subheadings. The four container-related bills have been 
narrowly drafted to ensure that only toy-related articles would qualify 
for the duty suspensions, and the association representing U.S. 
producers of travel goods and similar articles has indicated it does 
not oppose the proposed bills.
Extensions of existing duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2285: Covers bags of a type classified under HTS 4202.92.45, 
typically clear plastic backpack--or lunchbox-type bags, for carrying 
or holding toys, imported and sold with the toys already in the bag 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.78 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2286: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed for ViewMaster-type reels 
(existing duty suspension provision 9902.01.81 expires December 31, 
2006).
    H.R. 2287: Covers the traditional ViewMaster-type viewer classified 
by Customs as an ``optical instrument'' under HTS 9013.80.90 rather 
than as a toy under Chapter 95 (existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.80 expires December 31, 2006).
New duty suspension provisions:
    H.R. 2288: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.92.90 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys, except those covered by existing duty suspension provision 
9902.01.81 (see above) covering ViewMaster-type reel cases.
    H.R. 2289: Covers cases or containers of a type classified under 
HTS 4202.12.80 that are specifically designed, marketed or intended for 
toys.
    We appreciate this opportunity to share Mattel's views with the 
Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee.

                                 
          Statement of Louis S. Shoichet, Tara Toy Corporation
    The following statement is submitted on behalf of Tara Toy 
Corporation in response to the Subcommittee's request for public 
comment in connection with proposed legislation currently under 
consideration before the Subcommittee to temporarily suspend duty on 
certain products.
    Tara Toy Corporation strongly supports the Subcommittee's favorable 
action and passage of five bills that have been introduced for the 
purpose of providing for the temporary duty suspension for certain toy 
related products. These bills are H.R. 2285, H.R 2286, H.R 2287, H.R 
2288, and H.R. 2289.
    Tara Toy Corporation is a United States toy and toy accessory 
company, headquartered in Hauppauge, New York, and with offices located 
in New York and Florida. The company is a domestic manufacturer, 
importer and distributor of toy and toy related products, including 
specially designed cases and containers for toys and dolls. In addition 
to its domestic manufacturing operation, the company maintains an 
extensive product development and design facility in the United States 
to support the operations of the company. Merchandise manufactured and 
sold by Tara Toy is distributed throughout the United States and 
worldwide.
    Passage of the bills identified above would serve to support and 
strengthen the continued operations of the company and is of 
significant interest to Tara Toy Corporation.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Louis S. Shoichet
                                           Tompkins & Davidson, LLP
                                           New York, New York 10036
                                  On behalf of Tara Toy Corporation

                                 

                                Oscient Pharmaceuticals Corporation
                                       Waltham, Massachusetts 02451
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 LHOB
Washington, DC 20515-6348

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Thank you very much for inviting comments on pending miscellaneous 
duty suspension legislation. Oscient Pharmaceuticals Corporation 
(Oscient) strongly supports H.R. 2380, a bill to suspend temporarily 
the duty on gemifloxacin.
    As background, Oscient imports the active ingredient for its 
FACTIVE' (gemifloxacin mesylate) tablets, an important new 
antibiotic approved by the FDA for the treatment of community-acquired 
pneumonia and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. The active 
ingredient, gemifloxacin, is currently dutiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2933.99.4600. The 
active ingredient is shipped as the salt ``gemifloxacin mesylate,'' or 
the hydrated salt ``gemifloxacin mesylate sesquihydrate.''
    The 1995 multilateral agreement on ``zero-for-zero'' trade in 
pharmaceutical products required that each product be named in the 
Pharmaceutical Appendix of the HTS U.S. in order to be duty free. The 
Pharmaceutical Appendix is periodically updated through multilateral 
negotiations and recommendations by the U.S. Trade Representative. 
Unfortunately, this process is years behind the creation and naming of 
new pharmaceutical products. The last update to the Pharmaceutical 
Appendix occurred six years ago, on July 1, 1999. Other products that 
compete indirectly with gemifloxacin, known as ``fluoroquinolones,'' 
are already listed in the Pharmaceutical Appendix, and are therefore 
imported duty free.
    We have been advised by the USTR that the addition of Gemifloxacin 
to the Pharmaceutical Appendix is not seen as controversial and is 
supported by the USTR. Other unrelated issues in the multilateral 
negotiations on amending the Appendix, however, will likely delay its 
implementation until next year.
    The purpose of H.R. 2380 is to give Oscient temporary relief from 
customs duties while the USTR works to amend the Pharmaceutical 
Appendix with other countries. Once listed on the Appendix, 
gemifloxacin will be permanently and unconditionally duty free.
    The effective date proposed in the bill, January 1, 2005, is 
intended to give Oscient some relief due to the long delay in updating 
the Pharmaceutical Appendix. Gemifloxacin was recommended for addition 
to the ``International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for pharmaceutical 
substances'' by the World Health Organization in 2000 and could have 
been added to the HTS Pharmaceutical Appendix at any time after that.
    The original Appendix was effective on January 1, 1995 and was 
previously amended on April 1, 1997 and July 1, 1999. Gemifloxacin, 
recognized by the INN in 2000, lacks duty free treatment only because 
of the extensive delay in updating the Appendix.
    Obtaining duty free status for gemifloxacin is an important step in 
our growth as an emerging biopharmaceutical company committed to the 
development and commercialization of important new therapeutics. 
Oscient respectfully requests your support of H.R. 2380.
    Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is any additional 
information we can provide.
                                                    Steven Rauscher
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                                      Stephen Cohen
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                                 

                                            Micron Technology, Inc.
                                                 Boise, Idaho 83707
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw Chairman,
Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing to express Micron's support of H.R. 2469, a bill that 
would reinstate the temporary duty suspension for gold bonding wire 
used in the semiconductor manufacturing process.
    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. Such wire is very fine, with a diameter of 0.06 
millimeters or less, and it is 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 currently carries a duty rate of 4.1 
percent. The duty on this product was suspended as a result of 
legislation passed in October 1996, which was extended again in 2000. 
This temporary suspension lapsed on December 31, 2003, and there was 
not an opportunity to extend it due to the difficulties with passage of 
the last miscellaneous tariff bill. For this reason, the bill would 
retroactively apply the suspension back to the date when the last 
suspension lapsed.
    Gold bonding wire should be duty free on 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. Such suspension would benefit any 
U.S. company assembling semiconductors in the United States. As noted 
above, gold bonding wire for semiconductors was included in a 
temporaryduty suspension bill passed in October 1996, which was 
extended again in 2000. In conjunction with those bills, no adverse 
comments were received. In fact in relation to the suspension passed in 
1996, 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, has also supported duty suspension 
for gold bonding wire in the past.
    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, this legislation is non-controversial because, to our 
knowledge, there are no companies that make semiconductor gold bonding 
wire in the United States. We also believe 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. Thank you for your help on this important 
legislation.

                                                   Roderic W. Lewis
                  Vice President of Legal Affairs & General Counsel

                                 

                                               AK Steel Corporation
                                             Middletown, Ohio 45043
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    We note your advisory dated July 25, 2005 requesting written 
comment on technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and Miscellaneous 
Duty Suspension bills. Among the bills listed in the release is H.R. 
1121, a bill to repeal Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000, and the 
related measure, H.R. 2473. AK Steel strongly opposes both of these 
measures. We believe the consideration of these measures at this time 
would seriously undermine the direction of U.S. trade policy as 
established by the Administration and by Congress itself.
    Headquartered in Middletown, Ohio, AK Steel produces flat-rolled 
carbon, stainless and electrical steel products, as well as carbon and 
stainless tubular steel products for automotive, appliance, 
construction, and manufacturing markets. We have manufacturing 
facilities in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky which employ a total 
of about 8,000 men and women. In March of this year we were named one 
of America's ``most admired companies'' in a survey conducted by 
Fortune magazine that rated companies on eight criteria, including 
quality of management, innovation, and quality of products and 
services.
    The antidumping and subsidies laws were negotiated, written and 
endorsed by the world's trading nations over 50 years ago. They are 
well-recognized, well-established remedies for unfair trade that are 
only available when a domestic industry conclusively proves that it has 
been injured by clearly demonstrated dumping.
    We firmly believe that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
has been and continues to be an appropriate, effective, and legal 
response when foreign competitors engage in dumping or benefit from 
unfair subsidies. We strongly support the value of this measure that 
has been an effective tool in preserving the manufacturing base of this 
country in critical industries, and preventing the elimination of U.S. 
jobs.
    We particularly oppose any legislative activity to repeal the CDSOA 
at this time. Congress itself recognized that the appropriate forum for 
determining the future of CDSOA payments is in international trade 
discussions. In January 2004, Congress, in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, directed the Administration to conduct negotiations 
within the World Trade Organization on the question of the rights of 
WTO members to distribute monies collected from antidumping and 
countervailing duties.'' The Administration has, in the current Doha 
Round, proposed that the relevant WTO agreements be revised to clarify 
that anti-dumping and countervailing duty payments may be distributed 
as the member country deems appropriate.
    Repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act would be 
detrimental to the critical manufacturing sector of the economy, and 
would undermine internationally recognized principles of trade policy. 
Given Congress's statement in the 2004 appropriations measure, and the 
on-going consideration of these issues through the WTO, it would be 
particularly ill-advised to consider repeal of the legislation at this 
time. For these reasons, we strongly urge the committee to delete H.R. 
1121, and the related measure, H.R. 2473, from the list of measures to 
be considered by the committee at this time.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                 James L. Wainscott
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

   Statement of Jon D. Walton, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, 
                        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (``ATI'') submits these 
comments in strong opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill (``MTB''), a bill to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'' or ``the Byrd Amendment''), and in 
opposition to H.R. 2473 (also contained in the MTB), which alters the 
calculation of the ``all others'' rate in the antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases and would significantly reduce the amount of 
duties collected and distributed under CDSOA. We believe that 
continuation of the Byrd Amendment in its current form is essential to 
preserving the remedial effect of the U.S. antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws.
    ATI is one of the largest and most diversified specialty materials 
producers in the world with revenues of approximately $2.7 billion in 
2004. ATI has approximately 9,000 full-time employees world-wide who 
use innovative technologies to offer growing global markets a wide 
range of specialty materials solutions. ATI's products include nickel-
based alloys and superalloys, titanium and titanium alloys, stainless 
and specialty steels, zirconium, hafnium, and niobium, tungsten 
materials, silicon and tool steels, and forgings and castings.
    ATI Allegheny Ludlum, an Allegheny Technologies company, is a world 
leader in the production and marketing of sheet, plate, and strip 
specialty materials including stainless steel, nickel-based alloys, 
titanium, and titanium-based alloys. The company also produces grain-
oriented silicon electrical steel products, and tool steel plate. 
Allegheny Ludlum has approximately 3,700 full-time employees 
principally located in the United States.
    Allegheny Ludlum has received CDSOA disbursements since the 
inception of the program in 2001. In 2004, Allegheny Ludlum received 
CDSOA disbursements of approximately $2.5 million. These disbursements 
have had a positive effect on Allegheny Ludlum's net income, investment 
in property, plant and equipment, research and development and 
employment, which, in turn, have had a positive effect on the company's 
ability to compete.
    We understand that H.R. 1121 is intended to conform U.S. law to the 
January 16, 2003 decision of the WTO Appellate Body which found the 
CDSOA to be a nonpermissible ``specific action against'' dumping or 
subsidization. We believe that the Appellate Body's ruling is 
erroneous. Nothing in the WTO agreements addresses the ways that WTO 
members may use antidumping and countervailing duties once they have 
been paid.
    The CDSOA does not impose sanctions against dumping or 
subsidization any greater than those permitted under the WTO 
agreements; the Byrd Amendment did not raise the amount of antidumping 
and countervailing duties permissible under U.S. law and the WTO 
agreements. It simply applies the duties collected in a manner designed 
to remedy the ongoing injury caused by the continuation of unfair trade 
practices.
    ATI expects that Congress will actively support manufacturing jobs 
in the United States by opposing repeal of CDSOA and by supporting the 
U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by 
Congress. We note that Congress has called for our trade negotiators in 
the ongoing Doha Round to push for revision of the WTO agreements so 
that CDSOA and similar programs relating to the use by individual 
countries of the antidumping and countervailing duties they collect 
will be expressly accepted as consistent with WTO. We believe that this 
approach would improve the effectiveness throughout the world of long-
accepted disciplines aimed at discouraging dumping and subsidization of 
exports. The United States and the world trading system would be better 
for it.
    For these reasons, Allegheny Technologies Incorporated respectfully 
urges the Committee to report H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 unfavorably.

                                 

  Statement of Jennifer L. Diggins, American Iron and Steel Institute
    In response to the request for written comments with respect to 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals,\1\ the American Iron and Steel Institute 
(``AISI'') is pleased to provide the following comments regarding 
several of the bills listed in the Subcommittee's advisory (and 
proposed for inclusion in a miscellaneous trade package). As described 
below, these proposals are highly controversial, raise a number of 
substantive concerns and are not suitable for inclusion in a 
miscellaneous tariff bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Advisory from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee 
on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, requesting comments on 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension bills (July 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1121 (Repeal of ``Byrd Amendment'')
    One of the measures listed in the Subcommittee's advisory for 
potential inclusion in the miscellaneous tariff bill is H.R. 1121, 
which would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 
(``CDSOA''), often referred to as the ``Byrd Amendment'' (providing for 
the distribution of unfair trade duties to companies and workers 
injured by unfair foreign practices). H.R. 1121 is not only highly 
controversial, but is unnecessary given that Congress has clearly 
expressed the view that the ongoing dispute relating to the Byrd 
Amendment should be resolved in international negotiations. Inclusion 
of this measure in the miscellaneous tariff package would clearly give 
rise to substantial opposition to the overall bill, and is certainly 
not appropriate given the historic practice of limiting this bill to 
non-controversial items. Several points are important in this regard.
    First, the proposal to repeal the Byrd Amendment is apparently 
intended to implement the WTO Appellate Body's decision in United 
States--Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The WTO 
decision in this case, however, has been roundly criticized, including 
by the Bush Administration, as an example of judicial overreaching and 
the creation of obligations not found in the applicable WTO agreements. 
While the WTO Appellate Body ruled that lawfully collected antidumping 
and countervailing duties may not be distributed to injured domestic 
producers, the fact is that the negotiators of the relevant WTO 
agreements never even considered, much less undertook, any restrictions 
on how WTO Members may spend lawfully collected duties. In finding 
otherwise, the Appellate Body simply invented obligations that were not 
agreed to by U.S. negotiators or approved by Congress.
    Second, as Congress has recognized, this matter can and should be 
resolved through another, more appropriate avenue--the ongoing Doha 
Round of WTO negotiations. In this regard, the WTO's ruling in the Byrd 
case prompted 70 Senators to send a letter to President Bush in 
February 2003 urging him to seek, through trade negotiations, express 
recognition of the existing right of WTO Members to distribute monies 
lawfully collected from antidumping and countervailing duties as they 
saw fit. Moreover, Congress included in its Fiscal Year 2004 omnibus 
appropriations bill a provision directing the Bush Administration to 
immediately initiate WTO negotiations to recognize this right. The Bush 
Administration has now put this issue on the table of the Doha Round 
negotiations. This effort at a negotiated fix for the Appellate Body's 
decision should be given an opportunity to succeed--rather than rushing 
to repeal a critical U.S. law in the face of a flawed WTO dispute 
settlement decision.
    The Byrd Amendment has served a critical role in allowing U.S. 
industries devastated by unfair trade, including the steel industry, to 
make necessary investments and regain their competitive footing. It is 
important to emphasize that Byrd Amendment funds are made available 
only where, and to the extent, unfair trade continues after antidumping 
or countervailing duty orders have been put in place. When dumping and 
subsidization do not cease even in the face of such orders, it is 
essential that Byrd Amendment funds be provided to the affected 
domestic producers that are injured by such market-distorting behavior. 
Repealing the Byrd Amendment would deliver a major blow to U.S. 
manufacturers--along with agricultural and fishery industries--at a 
time when they face growing challenges from unfair trade.
    In short, including H.R. 1121 in the miscellaneous tariff package 
would be unwise, unnecessary and highly controversial. Rather than 
pursuing such flawed legislation, the United States should continue to 
seek a negotiated solution for this issue at the WTO.
    H.R. 2473 (Changes to Calculation of ``All Others'' Rate)
    The Subcommittee's advisory also lists H.R. 2473 among the 
potential measures for inclusion in a miscellaneous tariff bill. As 
with proposals to repeal the Byrd Amendment, this measure would be 
highly controversial and has no place in the legislation under 
consideration.
    H.R. 2473 includes language amending the ``all others'' rate 
provision of the antidumping statute--once again, apparently intended 
to implement an adverse decision of the WTO Appellate Body. In 
particular, in United States--Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan (``Japan Hot-Rolled''), the Appellate 
Body found that antidumping authorities may not calculate an ``all 
others'' antidumping duty rate for non-investigated companies using 
dumping margins that contain any element of ``facts available.''\2\ 
(The use of so-called ``facts available'' relates to reliance on 
alternative sources of information where a respondent fails to provide 
complete or accurate information in the course of an antidumping 
proceeding). As the Bush Administration recognized when this decision 
was issued, the Appellate Body failed to follow the appropriate 
standard of review in reaching its decision and, as a result, the 
decision was deeply flawed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``All others'' rates are applied to non-investigated companies 
in antidumping cases and are calculated based on the duty rates of 
individually investigated producers. See 19 U.S.C.  1673d(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, the Appellate Body's decision and the proposed amendment to 
the ``all others'' rate provision to implement it would raise a whole 
host of practical concerns about how meaningful ``all others'' rates 
could be calculated and about the administration of the antidumping 
law. Because the use of some degree of facts available is often 
required to calculate accurate trade remedy margins and meaningfully 
implement the statute, the Appellate Body's decision and the proposed 
amendment could make it impossible for the Department of Commerce to 
calculate an ``all others'' rate for non-investigated companies in many 
antidumping cases. This is a complex and controversial issue that 
certainly is not appropriately addressed in a miscellaneous tariff 
bill. As with the Byrd Amendment, the United States has also put this 
issue on the table of the Doha Round negotiations, and this effort 
should be allowed to proceed accordingly.
    We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the 
Subcommittee and hope that they will be taken into account in ongoing 
deliberations regarding the miscellaneous tariff bill.

                                 

                                             Barnes & Thornburg LLP
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the National Candle Association (``NCA''), we hereby 
submit its comments to express NCA's vigorous opposition to inclusion 
of H.R. 2473 and H.R. 1949 in the package of miscellaneous tariff 
bills. H.R. 2473 will weaken the antidumping law by amending the way in 
which the Department of Commerce calculates the ``All Others'' dumping 
margin. This would make a substantial and harmful change to the 
antidumping law by making it exceedingly difficult in a large number of 
cases for the Department of Commerce to calculate an ``All Others'' 
dumping rate for non-investigated exporters. This bill would not be 
administrable and has already attracted substantial opposition from 
U.S. manufacturers.
    The ``All Other'' rate applies to exporters that were not 
investigated and is based on the weighted average of dumping margins 
calculated for exporters that were investigated. H.R. 2473 would 
prohibit the Department of Commerce from calculating the ``All Others'' 
rate from any margins based on facts available. In many cases, this 
would effectively prohibit Commerce from calculating an ``All Others'' 
rate. This creates an administrative barrier for Commerce, and the bill 
provides no alternative method of calculating the ``All Others'' rate.
    H.R. 2473 is not a technical change, but rather a substantial 
substantive change that will weaken the antidumping law, create 
controversy and cause strong opposition from the U.S. manufacturing 
community. Congress has consistently refused to include any 
controversial measure in previous bills, such as this Technical 
Corrections and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension bill. A ``non-
controversial'' miscellaneous trade bill is not an appropriate vehicle 
to make legislative changes to trade remedy laws.
    H.R. 1949 proposes to reliquidate entries of imports of candles 
without the assessment of antidumping duties or interest and a refund 
of any antidumping duties and interest which were previously paid on 
such entries. The subject imports that entered the United States in the 
year 2000 are subject to a 65% antidumping duty. The respondents 
appealed the Department of Commerce decision to impose a 65% 
antidumping duty on imports on candles from China. The Court of 
International Trade affirmed the decision of the Department of 
Commerce, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed 
the respondent's appeal. H.R. 1949 is an attempt to overrule the 
decisions of the Department of Commerce, the Court of International 
Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This bill is 
controversial, not administrable, and blatantly operates retroactively. 
H.R. 1949 has no place in a ``non-controversial'' miscellaneous trade 
bill.
                                                 Randolph J. Stayin
                         Counsel to the National Candle Association
                                 ______
                                 
    National Candle Association
    Written Comments to H.R. 2473--Change and Method for Calculating 
``All Other'' Rates, Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET
    List of witnesses to the September 2, 2005 submission filed by 
Randolph J. Stayin on behalf of the National Candle Association:
    On behalf of the National Candle Association:
                                              Ms. Valerie B. Cooper
                                           Executive Vice President
                                        National Candle Association
    Counsel to the National Candle Association:
                                           Randolph J. Stayin, Esq.
                                             Barnes & Thornburg LLP

                                 

                                   California Minnesota Honey Farms
                                        Eagle Bend, Minnesota 56446
                                                    August 28, 2005
    My name is Jeff Anderson; I operate a migratory beekeeping 
operation California Minnesota Honey Farms based in Oakdale California 
and Eagle Bend Minnesota. My operation is or was, geared primarily 
toward honey production. Unfair competition primarily from China has 
severely cut into domestic honey pricing. Anti dumping followed by the 
Byrd Amendment have helped domestic honey prices attain workable 
levels.
    I am writing because of my concerns with the 2005 Miscellaneous 
Tariff Bill. There are two very troubling portions; H.R. 1121 and H.R. 
2473.
    I am strongly opposed to HR 1121 because it will repeal the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. (CDSOA) CDSOA, The 
Byrd Amendment was responsible for getting and keeping domestic honey 
prices at a level which kept my beekeeping operation solvent. With 2003 
through early 2004 honey prices, the roughly 350,000 lbs I produce 
grossed about $525,000, if prices fall to Chinese levels that same crop 
will gross $168,000. In 2004 my tax return showed about $25,000 
`profit'. DO THE MATH; I can not compete against cheap Chinese honey 
produced by `slave labor'. Communist economies are driven by government 
greed, not real life cost of doing business. If a product cost to much 
to produce simply pay your `slaves' less to produce it; undercut your 
competition until they cease to exist; then raise the price to a 
profitable levels. My operation will cease to exist if the Byrd 
Amendment is repealed, and honey prices fall to and stay at `Chinese' 
levels.
    I am also opposed to HR 2473. HR 2473 will `alter' the calculation 
for `all others' and will significantly reduce duties collected. The 
effect will be more financial incentive for the Chinese to import 
cheap, substandard honey.
    The proposed repeals amount to `outsourcing'. `Outsourcing' honey 
will put U.S. beekeepers out of business. Putting U.S. beekeepers out 
of business will have a HUGE ripple effect. Honeybees are responsible 
for a large portion of food produced. There is already a large outcry 
from crop growers that require insect pollination to set their crops. 
Honeybees are in short supply. Putting the pollinator's `managers' out 
of business by trying to save consumers a few pennies in retail honey 
prices is folly. It is not possible to `outsource' pollination! ! ! The 
pennies saved will cost thousands in the long run. Crop shortfalls will 
cause food prices to skyrocket.
    PLEASE! ! ! Apply some uncommon sense; do not repeal CDSOA, VOTE 
NOT ON (H.R. 1121). PLEASE! ! ! Do not alter the duties collected; VOTE 
NO ON (HR 2473).
    Thanks for you consideration and actions in this matter.
            Sincerely
                                                      Jeff Anderson
                                                 Owner and operator

                                 

                                   California Cut Flower Commission
                                      Watsonville, California 95077
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. which 
requested comments for the record regarding proposed bills concerning 
``technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals.'' A list of these miscellaneous trade bills is 
provided in the Advisory. This letter is the California Cut Flower 
Commission's response to the Subcommittee's request.
    The California Cut Flower Commission (CCFC) represents over 300 cut 
flower growers in the state of California. These growers produce 
approximately 70% of the cut flowers grown in the United States.
    In particular, the CCFC is concerned about, and opposes, two bills; 
H.R. 1121, and H.R. 2473. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section 754 
of the Tariff Act of 1930'' and H.R. 2473 is ``A bill to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others rate in 
antidumping cases.'' These bills are controversial and should be 
deleted from the final miscellaneous trade bill.
    Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Fair Trade:
    As the organization that represents the vast majority of cut flower 
producers in California, the CCFC is an unwavering supporter of strong 
trade law remedies. Effective and useable trade remedy laws are 
important tools to maintaining a level playing field for our industry 
in particular and more broadly for U.S. agricultural producers.
    The CCFC believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws in 
this bill or elsewhere, should be rejected. Absent strong trade remedy 
laws, it will be harder for U.S. companies and workers to compete 
fairly with subsidized and dumped imports. And, without effective and 
useable trade remedy laws on the books; market opening trade policies 
will lose the support of the American people.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will undermine trade remedy laws in the 
ways detailed below. These bills are the type of controversial measures 
should not be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:

      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan 
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal 
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to eligible domestic industries found to have been injured 
by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our 
foreign competitors do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only when dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
Concerns about H.R. 2473:

      This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by 
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern 
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
      This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact, 
it would make a significant and harmful change to the antidumping law 
by making it exceeding difficult in a large number of cases for the 
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for 
non-investigated exporters.
      The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all 
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted 
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual 
exporters that were investigated.
      Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted 
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data. 
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially 
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are 
not uncommon.
      Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual 
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to 
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
      H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating 
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available, 
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many case, there would be 
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
      In substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law. 
H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in carrying out its 
statutory responsibilities to administer the antidumping law.

    A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO 
Panel or Appellate Body Decisions
    Another reason to delete H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from a 
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are legislation designed 
to change U.S. law in response to controversial decisions by WTO 
dispute panels and Appellate Body. A non-controversial miscellaneous 
trade bill is not the appropriate vehicle to make such legislative 
changes to trade remedy laws.
    These bills clearly respond to specific cases where WTO panels and 
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On 
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the 
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach. 
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from 
the text of the WTO Agreements.
    In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to 
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through 
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just 
that in the Doha Round negotiations. Both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, if 
legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
    In conclusion, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 need to be expeditiously 
removed from the miscellaneous trade bill package. There is no reason 
to jeopardize the passage of the hundreds of other helpful and non-
controversial bills contained in the package.
                                                         Lee Murphy
                                                      President/CEO

                                 

                                     Cattle Producers of Washington
                                        Soap Lake, Washington 98851
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) is submitting these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
for the record from all parties interested in technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. CPoW is a 
non-profit state cattlemen's organization dedicated to promoting the 
health and long term stability of independent producers in Washington 
State. Being a border state, international trade policies greatly 
affect the profitability and viability of our state's third largest 
commodity industry.
    CPoW welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bills being 
considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous package, in particular 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. CPoW supports maintaining strong and effective trade 
laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for 
Washington State ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as 
Washington State manufacturers and workers. In a fair market, U.S. 
producers are second to none. When foreign competitors flood the U.S. 
market with dumped and subsidized goods, however, the trade laws must 
be in place to provide a remedy for injury caused by unfairly traded 
imports. CPoW believes it would be inappropriate to use the 
miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, but that will be the 
effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, CPoW believes that H.R. 1121 should not be included 
in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    CPoW is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate Body 
of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill 
is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions and 
enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and the 
Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on CDSOA 
and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new obligations 
that the United States never agreed to and which are not found in the 
text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has previously 
directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of these disputes 
at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in the Doha Round 
rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete that process, 
which ought to result in a correction of the problems created by panel 
and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, CPoW appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments 
and would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into account CPoW's 
views on the three bills discussed above.
                                                      Chad Henneman
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                               Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws
                                               Washington, DC 20007
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Trade Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I am writing on behalf of the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws 
(CSUSTL) to express the Committee's strong opposition to inclusion of 
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in the package of miscellaneous tariff bills. 
CSUSTL believes that miscellaneous tariff legislation, which has 
traditionally included duty suspension bills and minor technical 
corrections, is decidedly not the appropriate vehicle for addressing 
changes in our trade laws stemming from adverse WTO panel and Appellate 
Body decisions.
    CSUSTL is an ad hoc coalition with a broad-based membership 
comprised of U.S. companies, trade associations, agricultural 
producers, labor organizations, and law firms. CSUSTL's membership 
represents a cross-section of the American economy and spans most major 
sectors including manufacturing, technology, agriculture, mining, 
lumber, consumer products, energy, and services. CSUSTL supports the 
maintenance of strong and effective trade laws and believes that the 
changes to U.S. trade laws that would occur as a result of the repeal 
of the CDSOA provision (H.R. 1121) and the amendment of the method for 
calculating ``all other rates'' in antidumping proceedings (H.R. 2473) 
would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the trade remedy laws 
for the companies and workers we represent.
    Congress has already made clear its direction that the 
Administration pursue negotiations within the Doha Development Round to 
resolve these issues, including clear language in the Trade Promotion 
Authority of the Trade Act of 2002, as well as the Consolidated 
Appropriations Bills in 2004 and 2005. The Administration itself has 
commented that such overreaching WTO decisions have created obligations 
that the U.S. has never agreed to in any prior WTO negotiation. U.S. 
negotiators should pursue the negotiations option to clarify the WTO-
compatibility of U.S. practice with respect to distribution of AD and 
CVD duties and with respect to the calculation of the ``all others 
rate''.
    This approach has strong Congressional support on both sides of the 
aisle. Consequently, the inclusion of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in a 
package of tariff bills is extremely controversial. They simply have no 
place in a bill in which debate is limited and which has typically been 
passed under suspension of the rules.

                                                 David A. Hartquist
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                           Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This statement is submitted on behalf of the Copper & Brass 
Fabricators Council, Inc. and its member companies to express the 
Council's opposition to the passage as a part of the Miscellaneous 
Tariff Bill of H.R. 1121 calling for the repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) and H.R. 2473 which would alter 
the calculation of the ``all others'' rate in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases in a way that would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    The Copper and Brass Fabricators Council is a trade association 
that represents the principal copper and brass mills in the United 
States. The 20 member companies together account for the fabrication of 
more than 80% of all copper and brass mill products produced in the 
United States, including sheet, strip, plate, foil, bar, rod, and both 
plumbing and commercial tube. These products are used in a wide variety 
of applications, chiefly in automotive, construction, and electrical/
electronic industries.
    Council member companies employ more than 14,000 workers in good 
paying jobs. Appendix A lists the members of the Council and the 
addresses and congressional district of each headquarters and 
manufacturing facility operated by Council members together with the 
number of workers at each location. Also attached is Appendix B which 
contains legal analysis supportive of the Council's position.
    CDSOA enables Council members injured by unfair foreign trade to 
invest in their own companies and workers. Under CDSOA, import duties 
are distributed to U.S. manufacturers and workers who have supported 
successful trade cases against unfairly traded imports when dumping or 
unfair subsidization continues after an order is issued. All Council 
member companies have benefited from CDSOA distributions.
    For those anxious to end CDSOA distributions the solution is simple 
and does not require legislation; simply stop illegal dumping and 
subsidies.
    With respect to the CDSOA decision in which the WTO improperly 
overstepped its authority, in FY 2004 and FY 2005 both Houses of 
Congress directed the Bush Administration to negotiate a solution to 
the problem. Pursuant to those directives the Administration has stated 
to the WTO that it was ``beyond question that countries have the 
sovereign right to distribute government revenues as they deem 
appropriate''. That is all CDSOA does, it does not change legally 
authorized dumping and countervailing duties by a single penny.
    There is also a mistaken belief that the WTO found the CDSOA to be 
an illegal subsidy. The claim that the CDSOA was an actionable subsidy 
causing adverse trade effects was, however, rejected by the WTO panel 
and not appealed.
    Similarly, those who are opposed to CDSOA make the claim that it 
provides an incentive for domestic companies to file baseless 
antidumping or countervailing duty petitions. Such claims are simply 
unsupported by the record. The highest number of cases filed in recent 
years occurred in 1992, eight years prior to passage of the CDSOA. Case 
volumes since CDSOA became law are comparable in number to the volume 
filed before the law. The main influence on case volume actually 
appears to be the general level of economic activity in a given market 
with weak economic conditions giving rise to a higher level of case 
filings. In the last six months of 2004 only five cases were filed and 
that trend has continued in 2005. Nor is there any indication that 
court challenges to the ITC and DOC proceedings have increased thus 
disproving an alleged rise in so-called frivolous lawsuits.
    The Trade Act of 2002 highlighted the ongoing pattern of 
overreaching by the WTO which is creating obligations never agreed to 
by the United States. The Congress and the Administration should 
continue working to ensure that the WTO dispute regarding CDSOA is 
resolved in ongoing negotiations in Geneva. The Council and its member 
companies strongly oppose repeal or modification of CDSOA in the U.S. 
Congress.
    We appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter 
which is of great importance to the Council and its members.
            Very truly yours,
                                                    Joseph L. Mayer
                                        President & General Counsel

                                 

                                        Council Tool Company, Inc.,
                                Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina 28450
                                                    August 30, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I am writing on behalf of Council Tool Company Inc. and the 50 some 
families whose livelihood is derived from this operation. Located in 
Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina, we are a family owned and managed 
manufacturing firm which produces heavy forged hand tools. We have 
provided continuous employment in this area since 1886.
    Please let the record show that all stockholders, managers and hard 
working employees of this company strongly oppose H.R. 1121 in the 2005 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which calls for the repeal of CDSOA as well 
as H.R. 2473 which alters calculation of the ``all others'' rate in 
certain cases. Both of these bills are detrimental to the interests of 
Council Tool Company and specifically it's employees as well as 
domestic manufacturing in general.
    Council Tool is able to benefit from CDSOA because of an ITC ruling 
in 1991 declaring much of the product produced in mainland China to be 
dumped and the domestic industry injured. Subsequently we have suffered 
through and to date weathered unfair Chinese competition for at least 
fifteen (15) years. Many of our domestic competitors have not. They are 
out of business or sent the manufacturing jobs offshore.
    We have only recently benefited from a distribution and I can 
unequivocally state that our operation is much more stable and becoming 
more efficient as a result of the benefits of same. With the exception 
of state and federal income taxes, virtually one hundred (100) percent 
of the income this company received under our one distribution has 
stayed in the operation. For example:

      We strengthened our balance sheet, allowing the company 
to survive unprecedented metal, energy and transportation markets over 
the last 18 months or so. Steel is the largest material component in 
much of our product line. Because of the time lag in passing along 
dramatically increased costs--steel, fuel oil, electricity, propane, 
motor freight--this created significant margin problems. CDSOA funds 
allowed us to weather the aforementioned market conditions without 
adverse debt costs. We were able to acquire several new pieces of 
induction heating equipment which we simply would not have considered 
without the monetary distribution. With induction heating we are able 
to heat steel to high temperatures electrically very quickly as opposed 
to fuel fired furnaces. This increases the pace of the operation, 
reduces the actual cost of heating the steel and is certainly a more 
comfortable atmosphere for the operators of the equipment. This type of 
equipment, while more efficient and productive--is not inexpensive. 
Acquisition costs of new equipment of this sort are several hundred 
thousand dollars each plus installation and ramp up costs. With CDSOA 
funds we were able to purchase several new units--not used--and we 
purchased sizes we needed, not what we could get by with. Faced with 
extremely thin to non-existent margins (due to imported products of 
Chinese origin) we would not have considered this without the CDSOA 
funds.
      Additionally because of the distribution, we were able to 
acquire--without debt--several pieces of ancillary equipment used in 
the production of our tooling. Precision surface grinders and cadcam 
software. These are new, current technology, and capable of delivering 
increased precision and repeatability to our tooling efforts. The 
operation is stronger and more stable as a result.

    We are confident there are no more than three operations left in 
the U.S. which produce similar products. All are involved with CDSOA 
and although I certainly do not pretend to speak for them, I can easily 
imagine that there would be less than three remaining without CDSOA. In 
addition to traditional channels of distribution, we manufacture items 
under contract for the U.S. Forest Service, General Services 
Administration as well as various military specialty requirements. 
While these products may not be considered ``high tech'', they are 
necessary and vital and it would seem important that some degree of 
this kind of manufacturing technology remain in this country. For 
information purposes, several months back, we responded to an internet 
solicitation from a comparable Chinese manufacturer. We asked for 
pricing for several completed products. The f.o.b. China port pricing 
was generally less than or within a few cents of our domestic steel 
component cost. Without CDSOA, this could be considered impossible 
competition.
    It is my hope and the hope of all of our taxpaying employees and 
that Congress will actively support domestic manufacturing. The 
conditions under which domestic employers must attempt to remain 
competitive with foreign, particularly Asian firms and most 
particularly mainland China make it increasingly difficult to compete. 
Continued environmental and safety regulation ``creep'' along with 
sharply increased costs for employer provided group health insurance 
and employer provided workers compensation insurance are a few issues 
which come to mind. I can only provide an opinion into my small 
industry. Repeal of or weakening of CDSOA will only have negative 
consequences on those U.S. citizens currently employed here producing 
heavy forged hand tools. In our case, we have a large portion of our 
workforce with seniority of fifteen (15) to thirty (30) years. These 
people work HARD. We hope that Congress will look out for their 
interests and for the interests of other U.S. manufacturers who provide 
basic manufacturing employment in this country.
    Free trade is good public policy. Unless the playing field is 
relatively level, it is not fair trade. It seems to us that what CDSOA 
is doing is allowing injured U.S. manufacturers to continue to exist, 
strengthen their operations and continue to provide employment with 
benefits to American citizens.
    North Carolina has been a particularly hard hit state in recent 
years due to the significant migration of manufacturing jobs to other 
countries. Our county (Columbus) has been designated economically 
depressed. As we have for the last one hundred and nineteen (119) 
years, we want to continue to manufacture products of superior quality 
and value. In this way we can continue to provide jobs and stability in 
our community.
    Thanking you in advance for allowing us to contribute to this 
process.
            Sincerely,
                                                John M. Council III
                                                          President

                                 

                                               Floral Trade Council
                                               Ovid, Michigan 48866
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. which 
requested comments for the record regarding proposed bills concerning 
``technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals.'' A list of these miscellaneous trade bills is 
provided in the Advisory. This letter is the Floral Trade Council's 
response to the Subcommittee's request.
    The Floral Trade Council represents U.S. fresh cut flower growers.
    In particular, the FTC is concerned about, and opposes, two bills; 
H.R. 1121, and H.R. 2473. H.R. 1121 is ``A bill to repeal section 754 
of the Tariff Act of 1930'' and H.R. 2473 is ``A bill to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others rate in 
antidumping cases.'' These bills are controversial and should be 
deleted from the final miscellaneous trade bill.
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Fair Trade:
    As the organization that represents cut flower producers in the 
U.S., the FTC is an unwavering supporter of strong trade law remedies. 
Effective and useable trade remedy laws are important tools to 
maintaining a level playing field for our industry in particular and 
more broadly for U.S. agricultural producers.
    The FTC believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws in 
this bill or elsewhere, should be rejected. Absent strong trade remedy 
laws, it will be harder for U.S. companies and workers to compete 
fairly with subsidized and dumped imports. And, without effective and 
useable trade remedy laws on the books; market opening trade policies 
will lose the support of the American people.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will undermine trade remedy laws in the 
ways detailed below. These bills are the type of controversial measures 
should not be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
Concerns about H.R. 1121:

      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA has strong bi-partisan 
support from Members of Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal 
CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to eligible domestic industries found to have been injured 
by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute collected monies when unfair trade practices by our 
foreign competitors do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only when dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
Concerns about H.R. 2473:

      This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by 
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern 
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
      This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact, 
it would make a significant and harmful change to the antidumping law 
by making it exceeding difficult in a large number of cases for the 
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for 
non-investigated exporters.
      The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all 
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted 
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual 
exporters that were investigated.
      Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted 
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data. 
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially 
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are 
not uncommon.
      ``Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual 
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to 
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
      H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating 
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available, 
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many case, there would be 
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
      In substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law. 
H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in carrying out its 
statutory responsibilities to administer the antidumping law.

    A Miscellaneous Trade Bill is Not the Vehicle to Implement WTO 
Panel or Appellate Body Decisions
    Another reason to delete H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from a 
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are legislation designed 
to change U.S. law in response to controversial decisions by WTO 
dispute panels and Appellate Body. A non-controversial miscellaneous 
trade bill is not the appropriate vehicle to make such legislative 
changes to trade remedy laws.
    These bills clearly respond to specific cases where WTO panels and 
its Appellate Body have engaged in overreaching their authority. On 
both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, Congress and the 
Administration have expressed displeasure with this WTO overreach. 
These and other WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are not apparent from 
the text of the WTO Agreements.
    In addition, Congress has consistently told the Administration to 
work to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through 
negotiations at the WTO. The Administration is currently doing just 
that in the Doha Round negotiations. Both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, if 
legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
    In conclusion, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 need to be expeditiously 
removed from the miscellaneous trade bill package. There is no reason 
to jeopardize the passage of the hundreds of other helpful and non-
controversial bills contained in the package.
                                                 William R. Carlson
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                                  Gerdau Ameristeel
                                               Tampa, Florida 33631
                                                  September 2, 2005
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Sir or Madam:

    Gerdau Ameristeel is the steel industry's second largest minimill 
manufacturer with 73 operating facilities strategically located 
throughout North America. Our 7,200 professionals are dedicated to the 
preservation of a viable and competitive steel industry that is vital 
to the economic health of our society.
    On an annual basis, our steel operations recycle over eight million 
tons of ferrous scrap to produce quality steel products that reinforce 
the skylines and infrastructure of our communities and enrich the 
security of our lifestyles. The labor productivity of our operations 
and the advanced technology of our assets will rank among the leaders 
in the intensely competitive global steel industry.
    Gerdau Ameristeel has assumed a primary role in the consolidation 
and revitalization of the steel industry in North America. In the 
pursuit of our goals and strategic vision, we are not dependent on 
protectionist trade measures nor do we seek anything more than a level 
and fair global market environment. Unfortunately, the history of 
global steel trade reflects a legacy of foreign government 
intervention, subsidization and financial corporate welfare support for 
locally protected steel assets.
    The 7,200 employees of Gerdau Ameristeel wish to express their 
opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and any 
related legislative actions directed at the repeal of the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). We also wish to voice 
our displeasure and opposition to the proposals of H.R. 2473 which 
alters the calculation of the ``all others'' rate in anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty trade cases. Our opposition to the weakening of 
these unfair trade deterrents is based on a desire to sustain a 
reasonable balance in the fairness of international steel trade and to 
provide adequate time for completion of the restructuring of the North 
American steel industry.
    Over the past few years, our company has committed approximately 
one billion dollars towards the consolidation and revitalization of the 
domestic steel industry. Through this industry consolidation phase, 
Gerdau Ameristeel has increased its steel manufacturing capacity by 
approximately 400% and embarked on a long term program to resurrect the 
competitive stature of the acquired facilities.
    The success of this high risk strategy will require extensive 
capital investments in the modernization of the steel manufacturing 
facilities and the assimilation and rebuilding of the steel industry 
talent pool. We perceive that the completion of this industry 
revitalization will continue for several more years and the deterrent 
advantages of the existing trade laws will be of vital importance to 
this process. The fulfillment of this ambitious undertaking is also 
consistent with the directives of President Bush's policy mandates that 
were articulated during his first term of office.
    Gerdau Ameristeel is a major architect and driving force in the 
realization of the administrations steel policy and we urge the 
Congress to provide the moral guidance and legislative support for our 
completion of this task. The strength of our economy and the national 
security of our sovereign independence mandate that we retain a viable 
manufacturing sector and a healthy steel industry.
    As a constructive business partner in the realization of our steel 
industry vision, we strongly seek your support for the retention of 
effective trade laws and rejection of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Phillip E. Casey
                                                   Chairman and CEO

                                 

                                     Independent Steelworkers Union
                                       Weirton, West Virginia 26062
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Independent Steelworkers Union (``ISU'') represents over 2,000 
steelworkers at the Weirton facility of Mittal Steel USA, in Weirton, 
West Virginia. ISU is grateful for the chance to submit comments on 
bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade 
package. In particular, ISU is interested in H.R. 1068, ``A bill to 
maintain and expand the steel import licensing and monitoring 
program,'' H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 
relating to determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    ISU supports the inclusion of H.R. 1068 in the miscellaneous trade 
bill and urges Congress to pass it into law. H.R. 1068 is an important 
bill and one that should not attract significant controversy. H.R. 1068 
simply expands and makes permanent the steel import monitoring program 
that was established as part of the president's steel safeguard action 
in 2002. This successful program has enabled U.S. producers and 
policymakers to stay current on shifts in trade flows in the steel 
sector and, when necessary, to take appropriate action. Making the 
program permanent will help prevent future import surges like those in 
the late 1990s, which resulted in thousands of lost steelworker jobs. 
Expanding the program as proposed in H.R. 1068 would provide for 
complete coverage of all steel mill products, allowing for a more 
comprehensive analysis of steel imports. H.R. 1068, which modifies and 
expands a successful, existing program, is representative of the sort 
of bill that logically ought to be included in the miscellaneous trade 
package. ISU supports its inclusion and enactment.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are bills that should not be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills, if passed, 
would significantly weaken U.S. trade remedy laws and are thus likely 
to attract a great deal of opposition. The U.S. needs strong, effective 
trade remedy laws to ensure a level playing field for U.S. 
manufacturers and workers. Given a fair market, the U.S. steel industry 
can compete with any foreign rivals. However, ISU is all too familiar 
with the effect of surges of steel imports at dumped and subsidized 
prices. That is why the trade laws must remain in place, to prevent and 
offset unfair trade and to provide a remedy for injury caused by it. 
The miscellaneous trade bill should not be used to chip away at these 
critical laws. That is why H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 must be excluded 
from the package.
    H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes funds to 
certain domestic parties that have been injured by dumped and 
subsidized imports for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people. The source of the funds for CDSOA is antidumping and 
countervailing duties, which are collected when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. Where dumping 
or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no funds to 
distribute. That means the AD/CVD orders are working as intended. CDSOA 
does not change the methodology used by Commerce to calculate dumping 
margins or subsidy rates and it has no effect on the amount of duty 
that must be paid. The program simply distributes funds to injured 
parties, pursuant to generally applicable criteria, when unfair trade 
practices do not cease. There is broad bi-partisan support among 
Members of Congress and the public for CDSOA, and any legislation to 
repeal the law would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. In ISU's view, H.R. 1121 is not a bill that should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. This is hardly a technical amendment, however. If 
enacted, H.R. 2473 would severely limit Commerce's ability to 
effectively enforce the antidumping law. In effect, H.R. 2473 would 
make it nearly impossible in most cases for Commerce to calculate the 
dumping margin for non-investigated exporters, known as the ``all-
others'' rate. The ``all-others'' rate is a weighted average of dumping 
margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. Under 
current law, dumping margins that are based entirely on ``facts 
available'' data are not included in the average. ``Facts available'' 
refers to data used by Commerce to calculate a dumping margin when a 
respondent company does not supply all the actual company-specific that 
is needed. Margins that are based only partially on facts available are 
used in the calculation of the ``all-others'' rate. In practice, this 
is necessary because many of the dumping margins Commerce calculates 
are based on at least some ``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would prohibit Commerce from using any dumping margins in 
the ``all-others'' rate calculation that are based on any amount of 
``facts available'' data. In most cases, this would effectively leave 
Commerce with no margins to use in calculating an ``all-others'' rate. 
Consequently, H.R. 2473 would create serious administrative 
difficulties for the Department, necessarily weakening the antidumping 
law. For these reasons, H.R. 2473 will almost certainly attract 
significant controversy and would, for practical purposes, not be 
administrable by Commerce.
    ISU also finds it disturbing that the apparent purpose of H.R. 1121 
and H.R. 2473 is to implement World Trade Organization (``WTO'') panel 
and Appellate Body decisions that have gone against the U.S. That 
purpose is inconsistent with the purpose of the miscellaneous trade 
bill, which has historically been non-controversial legislation. 
Furthermore, Congress and the Administration have repeatedly criticized 
the overreaching of WTO panels and the Appellate Body, in these 
disputes in particular, and have consistently maintained that, in the 
decisions on CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, new obligations were 
created that the U.S. never agreed to. These new rules are nowhere to 
be found in the text of any WTO Agreement. Congress has also previously 
called for the Administration to resolve these disputes through 
negotiations at the WTO. Those negotiations are in progress as part of 
the Doha Round and the Administration should be allowed to work within 
that process to see whether, through negotiation, the problems created 
by panel and Appellate Body overreaching can be corrected. 
Consequently, it would not be appropriate to include H.R. 1121 and H.R. 
2473 in the miscellaneous trade package.
    ISU appreciates the Subcommittee accepting these comments and 
taking them into consideration during its deliberations.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                       Mark Glyptis
                                                          President

                                 

               Statement of Ryozo Kato, Embassy of Japan
    The Government of Japan appreciates the opportunity to present its 
view to the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means on 
Bill H.R. 2473 which amends Section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
of the United States in relation to the determination of the ``all-
others rate'' in anti-dumping investigations by the United States.
    On August 23, 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) found that Section 735(c)(5) was inconsistent with 
WTO rules \1\ The United States was obliged to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the WTO by November, 2002 \2\ In spite 
of Japan's reiterated request to implement the recommendations and 
rulings, the deadline, which was extended three times, expired on July 
31 due to the failure of the United States to comply. While the 
Understanding \3\ between the Government of the United States and of 
Japan reached in July of this year allows Japan to maintain the right 
to take retaliatory measures against the United States, Japan intends 
to continue bilateral discussions to urge the United States to render 
the provision at issue consistent with the multilateral trade rules, in 
the trust that the United States will certainly take necessary actions 
to comply with international rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See the Minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body, on United 
States--Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from 
Japan (pages 17-22, WT/DSB/M/108)
    \2\ Award of the Arbitrator (WT/DS184/13)
    \3\ Understanding between Japan and the United States of America 
(WT/DS184/19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The dispute settlement system is a fundamental pillar of the WTO in 
providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading 
system. Its credibility depends on the strict observance by its 
Members. The failure of the United States, a leading Member of the WTO, 
to fully comply with its WTO obligations is compromising the 
credibility of the United States. This in turn undermines the 
credibility of the WTO, which embodies a regime of a rule-based trading 
system, and would harm the interests of all WTO Members, including the 
United States.
    In this light, the Government of Japan strongly supports Bill H.R. 
2473 introduced by Chairman Clay Shaw.

                                 

                                     Kansas Cattlemen's Association
                                            Manhattan, Kansas 66502
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Kansas Cattlemen's Association is submitting these comments in 
response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments for the 
record from all parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. 
trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. The mission of 
the KCA is to restore profits, self-esteem, freedom, fair trade, trust 
and community pride back to the farms, ranches and rural communities 
across Kansas and the nation. Established in 1998, the Kansas 
Cattlemen's Association represents independent, grass-root cattle 
producers and feedlot operators on marketing and trade issues. Prior to 
1998, independent producers felt as though they were being both 
underrepresented and misrepresented by current organizations. Thus, the 
Kansas Cattlemen's Association works hard to sustain the independent 
agricultural lifestyle for farmers and ranchers. With all of the 
consolidation currently taking place amongst the agricultural 
industries, the Kansas Cattlemen's Association focuses on not only 
maintaining, but enhancing competition within the marketplace for the 
USA live cattle industry. In its nearly seven years of existence, the 
Kansas Cattlemen's Association has experienced exponential growth, with 
current membership numbers approaching 2,100.
     The Kansas Cattlemen's Associationwelcomes the opportunity to 
comment on the bills being considered for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous package, in particular H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to 
amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others 
rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. The Kansas Cattlemen's Association supports 
maintaining strong and effective trade laws. Such laws are necessary to 
ensure a level playing field for U.S. ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, 
as well as U.S. manufacturers and workers. In a fair market, U.S. 
producers are second to none. When foreign competitors flood the U.S. 
market with dumped and subsidized goods, however, the trade laws must 
be in place to provide a remedy for injury caused by unfairly traded 
imports. The Kansas Cattlemen's Association believes it would be 
inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, 
but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in 
the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, the Kansas Cattlemen's Associationbelieves that H.R. 
1121 should not be included in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    The Kansas Cattlemen's Association is also concerned that H.R. 1121 
and H.R. 2473 appear to be efforts to implement adverse decisions of 
panels and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization 
(``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill is not an appropriate means by 
which to implement such decisions and enact changes in major U.S. trade 
laws. Furthermore, Congress and the Administration have been critical 
of overreaching by WTO panels and the Appellate Body and have expressed 
concern that the decisions on CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, in 
particular, created new obligations that the United States never agreed 
to and which are not found in the text of any WTO Agreement. In 
addition, Congress has previously directed the Administration to 
negotiate a resolution of these disputes at the WTO. The Administration 
is currently engaged in the Doha Round rules negotiations and should be 
allowed to complete that process, which ought to result in a correction 
of the problems created by panel and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, the Kansas Cattlemen's Association appreciates the 
opportunity to submit these comments and would like to thank the 
Subcommittee for taking into account the Kansas Cattlemen's Association 
views on these two bills discussed above.

                                                         Doran Junk
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                                        Libbey Inc.
                                                 Toledo, Ohio 43604
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3. The 
Advisory requested written comments for the record from interested 
parties regarding proposed bills concerning ``technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.'' The 
Advisory included a list of the particular miscellaneous trade bills 
about which comments were requested. This letter is Libbey Inc.'s 
(Libbey) response to the Subcommittee's request.
    Libbey is a leading supplier of tableware products in the U.S. and 
Canada. Based in Toledo, Ohio, Libbey operates glass tableware 
manufacturing plants in the United States in Louisiana and Ohio, in 
Portugal and in the Netherlands. In addition, through its Syracuse 
China, World Tableware, and Traex subsidiaries, it is a leading 
provider of ceramic dinnerware, metal flatware, and plastic products to 
the foodservice industry in the United States. Libbey exports glassware 
to more than 90 countries around the world and also provides technical 
assistance to a number of foreign glass tableware manufacturers.
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Should Not Be Included In a Miscellaneous Trade 
        Bill Package
    In particular, Libbey is concerned about, and opposes, two bills.

    H.R. 1121--``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 
1930''
    H.R. 2473--``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases''
Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Maintaining Fair Trade
    As a major U.S. manufacturer of glass tableware and ceramic 
dinnerware, both import-sensitive products, Libbey is a strong and 
long-standing supporter of strong trade law remedies. Effective and 
useable trade remedy laws are necessary, indeed, crucial to maintaining 
a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers and their workers. Libbey 
thus believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws should be 
rejected because it will make it harder for U.S. companies and workers 
to compete fairly with subsidized and dumped imports.
    Moreover, without effective trade remedy laws in place, trade 
liberalization policies will lose public support.
Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Would Weaken Crucial Trade Remedy Laws, 
        They Will Attract Controversy and Strong Opposition
    A miscellaneous trade bill is not intended to be a vehicle for 
controversial legislation. Bills that weaken trade remedy laws will 
cause controversy. Because both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will weaken 
trade remedy laws, they will cause controversy. Hence, they should not 
be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.
H.R. 1121:

      This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'').
      CDSOA has strong bi-partisan support from Members of 
Congress and the public. Any attempt to repeal CDSOA would attract 
intense controversy and strong opposition.
      Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of 
continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. 
government to certain eligible domestic parties in industries found to 
have been injured by dumped or subsidized imports.
      CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are 
calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay. All it does is 
simply distribute money pursuant to generally applicable criteria when 
unfair trade practices do not cease.
      CDSOA distributes money only to the extent dumping and 
subsidization continues after an order. If dumping and subsidization 
cease, no funds are collected or distributed.
H.R. 2473:

      This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by 
deleting the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These provisions concern 
the calculation of the ``all others rate.''
      This proposal is not simply a technical change. In fact, 
it would effect a substantial and harmful change to the antidumping law 
by making in virtually impossible in a large number of cases for the 
Department of Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' dumping rate for 
non-investigated exporters.
      The ``all-others'' rate is the rate that applies to all 
exporters that were not investigated. It is calculated as the weighted 
average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual 
exporters that were investigated.
      Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted 
average any margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data. 
Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially 
on ``facts available.'' Margins based on partial facts available are 
not uncommon.
      ``Facts available'' data (data substituted for actual 
company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to 
submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
      H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating 
the ``all others'' rate from any margins based on facts available, 
partial or entire. This would mean that, in many cases, there would be 
no useable margins from which to calculate an ``all others'' rate.
      In substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law. 
Administratively, H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in 
carrying out its statutory responsibilities to administer the 
antidumping law.
      In sum, because H.R. 2473 would attract controversy and 
engender strong opposition from domestic party users of the antidumping 
law, it should not be included in a purportedly non-controversial 
miscellaneous trade bill package.
Miscellaneous Trade Bills Are Not Appropriate Vehicles to Implement WTO 
        Panel or Appellate Body Decisions
    A further reason not to include H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in a 
miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are apparent attempts to 
implement legislatively controversial decisions by WTO dispute panels 
and Appellate Body. ``Non-controversial'' miscellaneous trade bills are 
not an appropriate vehicle to effect such legislative changes to trade 
remedy laws.
    Moreover, on both the CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate issues, 
Congress and the Administration have criticized the WTO panels and 
Appellate Body for overreaching their authority. They have said that 
these (and other) WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. 
obligations that were not negotiated and which are apparent from the 
text of the WTO Agreements. In addition, Congress has repeatedly told 
the Administration to seek a resolution of these controversial 
decisions through negotiations at the WTO, which the Administration is 
currently doing in the context of the Doha Round. Both H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473, if legislated, would interfere in these efforts.
Conclusion
    For all of the foregoing reasons, both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 
would ``attract controversy,'' weaken the trade remedy laws, and give 
rise to strong opposition. Neither H.R. 1121 nor H.R. 2473 should be 
included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.

                                                Susan Allene Kovach
                      Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                    Montana Cattlemen's Association
                                            Billings, Montana 59107
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Montana Cattlemen's Association (MCA) is a state wide organization 
representing over 1,300 cattle producers and their families. Our 
producer members are directly impacted by the effects of foreign 
imports displacing domestic production and having direct impact on our 
domestic prices.
    Montana Cattlemen's Association welcomes the opportunity to comment 
on the bills being considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous 
package, in particular H.R. 1802, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 
1930 with respect to the marking of imported live bovine animals,'' 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1802 is an important bill and one that should not attract 
significant controversy. MCA believes it makes sense to include this 
bill in the miscellaneous trade package. Federal law already requires 
that, in general, imports must be marked with their country of origin. 
For many years, however, the Treasury Department has exempted livestock 
by including it on its ``J-list'' (19 C.F.R.  134.33) of imports that 
need not be marked or branded pursuant to the requirements of the Trade 
Act of 1930. Livestock should not be exempted from those requirements. 
It is not impractical to require imported livestock to be indelibly 
marked, and it is important to require marking, not only for tracking 
and identification, but to demonstrate the commitment of the United 
States to compliance with established U.S. rules on inspection and 
testing.
    The miscellaneous trade bill has been used in the past to amend the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to specify particular imports for which country-of-
origin marking is expressly required. For example, the marking of 
certain silk products was specifically required by the Miscellaneous 
Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999, and the marking of certain 
coffee and tea products as well as the marking of spices was explicitly 
required by the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
1996. Like these prior amendments, H.R. 1802 logically should be 
included in the miscellaneous trade package, and MCA urges its 
inclusion and enactment.
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, however, are not well suited for inclusion 
in the miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. MCA supports maintaining strong and effective trade 
laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for U.S. 
ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as U.S. manufacturers and 
workers. In a fair market, U.S. producers are second to none. When 
foreign competitors flood the U.S. market with dumped and subsidized 
goods, however, the trade laws must be in place to provide a remedy for 
injury caused by unfairly traded imports. MCA believes it would be 
inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade bill to weaken those laws, 
but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are included in 
the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, MCA believes that H.R. 1121 should not be included in 
the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    MCA is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate Body 
of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade bill 
is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions and 
enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and the 
Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on CDSOA 
and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new obligations 
that the United States never agreed to and which are not found in the 
text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has previously 
directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of these disputes 
at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in the Doha Round 
rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete that process, 
which ought to result in a correction of the problems created by panel 
and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, MCA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments and 
would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into account MCA's 
views on the three bills discussed above.
                                                   Brett DeBruycker
                                                          President

                                 

                                             Pacamor Kubar Bearings
                                               Troy, New York 12180
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This letter is in response to a July 25, 2005 notice from the 
Subcommittee, No. TR-3, which requested comments concerning technical 
corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Pacamor Kubar Bearings (``PKB'') is an American owned and 
operated precision miniature and instrument ball bearing manufacturer. 
We have been manufacturing quality bearings for over 40 years, serving 
industries such as aerospace, aircraft instrument, medical and dental 
instruments, computers, flow meters, and many others. PKB welcomes the 
opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with comments on two bills 
under consideration, in particular H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal 
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to 
amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others 
rate in antidumping cases.'' We believe the inclusion of these bills in 
the miscellaneous trade package would weaken U.S. trade laws and 
attract significant controversy.
    PKB's operations have been the target of unfair trade for several 
decades. We have, therefore, been committed to maintaining the strength 
of U.S. trade remedies so as to permit fair competition with our 
foreign counterparts. Unfairly dumped and subsidized imports threaten 
not only PKB's operations, but the strength of the domestic industry as 
a whole. Indeed, many U.S. bearings producers have been forced out of 
business as a result of unfairly traded goods. It is imperative that 
our trade laws are not weakened by the inclusion of bills such as H.R. 
1121 and H.R. 2473 in the miscellaneous trade package.
    In particular, H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (''CDSOA''). CDSOA permits the distribution 
of money to domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, 
equipment, and employee-related expenses such as health benefits when 
an industry has been found injured by dumped or subsidized imports. The 
monies distributed are derived from duties owed when dumping and/or 
subsidization continues. If the unfair trade ceases, there are no 
duties to be collected and therefore, no funds to be distributed. There 
is widespread bi-partisan support for CDSOA by both members of Congress 
and strong public support for this law. Repeal of CDSOA would not only 
foster strong opposition and attract significant controversy, but would 
also serve to undermine the effectiveness of import relief to domestic 
industries.
    Similarly, H.R. 2473 should not be included as this amendment would 
prevent the Department of Commerce from calculating ``all-others'' 
dumping margins for non-investigated exporters in a large subset of 
cases, rendering this provision of the law almost entirely ineffectual. 
The ``all-others'' rate, which is applied to all non-investigated 
exporters, is a weighted average of dumping margins calculated for 
individually investigated exporters. When individually investigated 
exporters do not provide Commerce with all of the data necessary to 
calculate a dumping margin, Commerce will use ``facts available'' as a 
proxy for such data either in whole or in part. This means that 
Commerce will supplement an exporter's data with generally available 
public information. Where an exporter has not provided any information, 
and Commerce is forced to rely entirely on facts available, existing 
U.S. law precludes Commerce from then using the resulting margin of 
that individually investigated entity in a weighted average calculation 
to determine the ``all-others'' rate.
    H.R. 2473 would remove the word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) 
and (B) of section 735(c) (5) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The practical 
effect of such deletion is that Commerce would then also be precluded 
from including any individually-investigated exporter's margin, based 
in part on facts available, in its calculation of the ``all-others 
rate.'' As it is often the case that at least a small part of an 
exporter's dumping margin is calculated using facts available, the 
enactment of H.R. 2473 would mean that in a large majority of cases, 
Commerce would have no usable margins by which to calculate an ``all-
others rate.'' This would create serious administrative difficulties 
for Commerce and would substantially weaken the antidumping law.
    It is also the case that both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to be 
in response to decisions of panels and the Appellate Body of the World 
Trade Organization (``WTO''). Inclusion of these bills in the 
miscellaneous trade package is not the appropriate forum to effect 
changes to U.S. Trade Laws in order to implement WTO panel or Appellate 
Body reports. This is particularly significant as Congress and the 
Administration have been concerned that WTO Panels and the Appellate 
Body have engaged in overreaching in their decision on CDSOA, on the 
calculation of the ``all-others rate,'' and on other issues by creating 
obligations that the U.S. never agreed to and which do not appear in 
the text of the WTO Agreements. The more appropriate form to deal with 
resolution of these issues is through the Doha Round negotiations.
    In conclusion, we strongly oppose the inclusion of H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473 in the miscellaneous trade package for the reasons stated 
herein. This legislation should be non-controversial, and, therefore, 
not include bills that would attract significant opposition and 
undermine U.S. trade laws.
    Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                        Augustine J. Sperrazza, Jr.
                                                   Chairman and CEO

                                 

      Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
                                                            America
                                            Billings, Montana 59107
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
America (R-CALF USA) is submitting these comments in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for written comments for the record from all 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. R-CALF USA is a national, non-
profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability 
and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA has more than 
18,000 members, primarily cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and 
feedlot owners, located in 47 states.
    R-CALF USA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the bills being 
considered for inclusion in the miscellaneous package, in particular 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.''
    H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are not well suited for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package. These bills are likely to attract 
significant controversy and would constitute major changes to U.S. 
trade remedy laws. R-CALF USA supports maintaining strong and effective 
trade laws. Such laws are necessary to ensure a level playing field for 
U.S. ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, as well as U.S. manufacturers 
and workers. In a fair market, U.S. producers are second to none. When 
foreign competitors flood the U.S. market with dumped
    and subsidized goods, however, the trade laws must be in place to 
provide a remedy for injury caused by unfairly traded imports. R-CALF 
USA believes it would be inappropriate to use the miscellaneous trade 
bill to weaken those laws, but that will be the effect if H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473 are included in the package.
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''). CDSOA is a program that distributes 
antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties when dumping or 
subsidization continues after AD/CVD orders are imposed. The existence 
of continued dumping and subsidization indicates that fair market 
conditions have not been restored and that the industry that was found 
to be injured by dumped or subsidized imports is not getting the remedy 
intended by the statute. CDSOA funds are distributed to certain 
domestic parties for eligible expenditures on plant, equipment, and 
people, that is, for reinvesting in their businesses. The program is 
funded using duties collected on dumped and subsidized imports. If 
dumping or subsidization stops after an order is issued, there are no 
funds to distribute. CDSOA does not change how dumping margins or 
subsidy rates are calculated or how much duty must be paid. The program 
simply distributes moneys pursuant to generally applicable criteria 
when unfair trade practices do not cease. CDSOA enjoys wide bi-partisan 
support among Members of Congress and the public, and any legislation 
to repeal it would attract substantial controversy and strong 
opposition. Thus, R-CALF USA believes that H.R. 1121 should not be 
included in the miscellaneous trade bill.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law to delete the word 
``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930. While this may appear to be a small change, in 
reality, if enacted, H.R. 2473 could prevent Commerce from effectively 
enforcing the antidumping law. H.R. 2473 would make it virtually 
impossible for Commerce to calculate ``all-others'' dumping margins for 
non-investigated exporters in most cases. The ``all-others'' rate, 
which is applied to non-investigated exporters, is a weighted average 
of dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. 
Margins based entirely on ``facts available'' data are excluded from 
the average under the current law. ``Facts available'' data is 
information Commerce uses as a substitute for actual company-specific 
data when a respondent company does not supply all the data necessary 
to calculate a dumping margin. Margins that are based only in part on 
facts available are used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate because 
many dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at least some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 would require Commerce to exclude all dumping margins 
based on any amount of ``facts available'' information from the ``all-
others'' rate calculation. The effect of this would be, in most cases, 
that Commerce would be left with no margins to calculate an ``all-
others'' rate. This would result in serious administrative difficulties 
for the Department, which would consequently weaken the antidumping 
law. Hence, H.R. 2473 is likely to attract significant controversy and 
would likely not be administrable by the Commerce Department.
    R-CALF USA is also concerned that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 appear to 
be efforts to implement adverse decisions of panels and the Appellate 
Body of the World Trade Organization (``WTO''). The miscellaneous trade 
bill is not an appropriate means by which to implement such decisions 
and enact changes in major U.S. trade laws. Furthermore, Congress and 
the Administration have been critical of overreaching by WTO panels and 
the Appellate Body and have expressed concern that the decisions on 
CDSOA and the ``all-others'' rate, in particular, created new 
obligations that the United States never agreed to and which are not 
found in the text of any WTO Agreement. In addition, Congress has 
previously directed the Administration to negotiate a resolution of 
these disputes at the WTO. The Administration is currently engaged in 
the Doha Round rules negotiations and should be allowed to complete 
that process, which ought to result in a correction of the problems 
created by panel and Appellate Body overreaching.
    Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both controversial bills that 
are likely to draw strong opposition, and because their enactment would 
cut short the ongoing process of negotiations at the WTO, the 
Subcommittee should deem them inappropriate for inclusion in the 
miscellaneous trade package.
    Again, R-CALF USA appreciates the opportunity to submit these 
comments and would like to thank the Subcommittee for taking into 
account R-CALF USA's views on the two bills discussed above.
                                                   Leo R. McDonnell
                                                          President

                                 

                                            Sioux Honey Association
                                             Sioux City, Iowa 51101
                                                    August 24, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Our Company, Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, is an 
agricultural cooperative founded in 1921 by five beekeepers who lived 
near Sioux City,Iowa, by pooling together $200.00 and 3,000 pounds of 
honey as an experimental marketing project. The Association's corporate 
office is in Sioux City, Iowa with branch plants in Anaheim, California 
and Waycross, Georgia and employs 82 employees. The cooperative is 
owned and operated by its' 307 Member beekeepers from 24 States and 
this accounts for 20% of the domestic honey crop and 15% of the honey 
sold in the U.S.
    The 307 beekeepers that are Members of the Association are a 
critical resource to the nation's food industry. These Members are the 
largest organized group of beekeepers in the U.S. impacting 
agriculture. Honeybees do 80% of the pollinating for one-third of the 
human diet that is derived from insect-pollinated plants. Pollination 
by honeybees also affects over 100 crops nationwide with a combined 
annual value of $10 billion, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
    Sioux Honey Association strongly opposes H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (``MTB'') calling for the repeal of the 
CDSOA. The Association also strongly opposes H.R. 2473 (also contained 
in the MTB) which alters the calculations of the ``all others'' rate in 
AD/CVD cases, which would significantly reduce the amount of duties 
collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    CDSOA has worked well for U.S. companies and their workers. CDSOA 
simply transfers the Customs duty assessed on foreign competitors for 
violations of U.S. trade laws directly to the U.S. companies that face 
this unfair and persistent foreign competition. These funds are only 
for continued illegal acts no duties are accessed and available to 
injured parties unless a competitor continues to violate our laws. Our 
Members have benefited from CDSOA by being able to continue to invest 
in their facilities and workers, preserving U.S. jobs, and their family 
businesses.
    Our expectations are that Congress will actively support 
manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by opposing the repeal of the CDSOA and 
by supporting the U.S. government's sovereign right to distribute taxes 
as determined by Congress by fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in 
the World Trade Organization. Congress has called for our trade 
negotiators in the ongoing Doha Round to push for revision of the WTO 
agreements so that CDSOA and similar programs relating to individual 
countries' use of the AD/CVD duties they collect will be expressly 
accepted as WTO consistent. This is the way to resolve the WTO dispute 
that is the basis for calls to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
                                                     David Allibone
                                                      President/CEO

                                 

                                                Stewart and Stewart
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The following comments are submitted in response to Advisory No. 
TR-3, dated July 29, 2005, in which the Subcommittee on Trade requested 
``written comments for the record from all parties interested in 
technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals,'' and ``public comment on those bills listed'' in 
the advisory.
    Two of the bills listed in the advisory are of particular concern: 
H.R. 1121, ``A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930,'' 
and H.R. 2473, ``A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to 
determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases.'' These bills are 
unsuitable for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill. As explained 
further below, each bill attempts to implement controversial adverse 
WTO decisions, each would weaken U.S. trade remedy laws, and each would 
attract significant controversy. In addition, H.R. 2473 would likely 
not be administrable by the Commerce Department. Hence, H.R. 1121 and 
H.R. 2473 do not meet the criteria for bills that have historically 
been part of the non-controversial miscellaneous trade package.
Controversial Adverse WTO Decisions That Have Been Criticized by 
        Congress and the Administration Should Not Be Implemented Using 
        the Miscellaneous Trade Bill
    It is evident that H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 seek to implement 
decisions of World Trade Organization (``WTO'') panels and the 
Appellate Body in disputes that were decided adversely to the interests 
of the United States.\1\ However, the miscellaneous trade bill should 
not be used to amend major U.S. trade laws to implement controversial 
WTO panel or Appellate Body reports. This is at odds with the stated 
and historical purpose of such non-controversial legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Specifically, United States--Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2002, DS217, DS234 (adopted on January 27, 2003), and 
United States--Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan, DS184 (adopted on August 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress noted its growing 
apprehension about WTO dispute settlement proceedings:
    (A) the recent pattern of decisions by dispute settlement panels of 
the WTO and the Appellate Body to impose obligations and restrictions 
on the use of antidumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures by 
WTO members under the Antidumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures, and the Agreement on Safeguards has raised 
concern; and
    (B) the Congress is concerned that dispute settlement panels of the 
WTO and the Appellate Body appropriately apply the standard of review 
contained in Article 17.6 of the Antidumping Agreement, to provide 
deference to a permissible interpretation by a WTO member of provisions 
of that Agreement, and to the evaluation by a WTO member of the facts 
where that evaluation is unbiased and objective and the establishment 
of the facts is proper.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 19 U.S.C.  3801(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of its misgivings, Congress called on the Administration 
to prepare a ``report setting forth the strategy of the executive 
branch to address concerns of the Congress regarding whether dispute 
settlement panels and the Appellate Body of the WTO have added to 
obligations, or diminished rights, of the United States.'' \3\ In the 
report it transmitted to Congress, the Administration was likewise 
critical of WTO dispute settlement, stating that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 19 U.S.C.  3805(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the United States does not agree with the approach that WTO panels 
and the Appellate Body have sometimes taken in disputes, and is 
concerned about the potential systemic implications. In particular, the 
executive branch views with concern the manner in which WTO panels and 
the Appellate Body have applied the applicable standard of review in 
disputes involving U.S. trade remedy and safeguard matters, and 
instances in which they have found obligations and restrictions on WTO 
Members concerning trade remedies and safeguards that are not supported 
by the texts of the WTO agreements. . . .\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Executive Branch Strategy Regarding WTO Dispute Settlement 
Panels and the Appellate Body--Report to the Congress Transmitted by 
the Secretary of Commerce, at 7 (Dec. 31, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Administration has identified the disputes concerning the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA'') and the 
``all-others'' rate, among others, as particular instances wherein 
obligations that have no textual basis in the WTO Agreements were 
created and imposed on the United States by WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body. About CDSOA, the Administration has stated that:
    The Appellate Body--created a new category of prohibited subsidies 
that ha[s] neither been negotiated nor agreed to by WTO Members.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, Held in the Centre 
William Rappard on 27 January 2003, WT/DSB/M/142, at para. 55 (March 6, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the ``all-others'' rate decision in the Hot-Rolled 
Steel dispute, the Administration has pointed out that:
    the Anti-Dumping Agreement [does] not explicitly require that 
margins containing any amount of ``facts available'' be excluded from 
the ``all others'' calculation: it [is] silent as to the amount of 
``facts available'' that trigger[] exclusion. Given that the Anti-
Dumping Agreement [is] ambiguous on the degree of ``facts available'' 
which require[] exclusion, Article 17.6 required that permissible 
interpretations such as that of the United States be accepted. Further, 
the Appellate Body--resolved the ambiguity in a way that did not foster 
predictability in the calculation of the ``all others'' rate and that 
did not fully take into account the practical side of calculating an 
``all others'' rate.\6\, \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting, Held in the Centre 
William Rappard on 23 August 2001, WT/DSB/M/108, at para. 73 (October 
2, 2001).
    \7\ The Senate Report on the Trade Act of 2002 also specifically 
identified the Hot-Rolled Steel dispute as being among the disputes in 
the ``recent pattern'' about which Congress was concerned. S. Rep. 107-
139, at 54 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The miscellaneous trade bill should not be used to implement these 
or any other instances of overreaching by WTO panels and the Appellate 
Body.
    In fact, implementation of these decisions through the enactment of 
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 would contravene previous expressions of 
Congressional intent. The Trade Act of 2002 called for a 
``comprehensive strategy for correcting instances in which dispute 
settlement panels and the Appellate Body have added to obligations or 
diminished rights of the United States.'' \8\ Even more explicitly, 
with respect to CDSOA, in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2004 
and 2005, Congress directed ``[t]hat negotiations shall be conducted 
within the World Trade Organization to recognize the right of members 
to distribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing 
duties.'' \9\ The negotiations called for by Congress are ongoing in 
the context of the WTO Doha Round on both of these issues. Those 
negotiations should be allowed to run their course to see if the 
problems created by panel and Appellate Body overreaching can be 
corrected. Enactment of H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 would undercut the 
possibility of the negotiated resolution envisioned by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ S. Rep. 107-139, at 55 (2002).
    \9\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, P.L. 108-199 (Jan. 23, 
2004); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L. 108-447 (Dec. 8, 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Miscellaneous Trade Bill Should Not Weaken U.S. Trade Remedy Laws
    There has been broad, consistent, and longstanding support for the 
trade remedy laws in Congress. Strong and effective trade remedy laws 
are key to ensuring a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers, 
farmers, ranchers, and workers, and for maintaining public support for 
further trade liberalization. Consistent with these principles, 
Congress declared in the Trade Act of 2002 that:
    The principal negotiating objectives of the United States with 
respect to trade remedy laws are--
    (A) to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce 
rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, countervailing 
duty, and safeguard laws, and avoid agreements that lessen the 
effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair 
trade, especially dumping and subsidies, or that lessen the 
effectiveness of domestic and international safeguard provisions, in 
order to ensure that United States workers, agricultural producers, and 
firms can compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of 
reciprocal trade concessions; and
    (B) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to dumping 
and subsidization, including overcapacity, cartelization, and market-
access barriers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 19 U.S.C.  3802(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Conference Report accompanying the Trade Act of 
2002 recognized:
    the importance of preserving the ability of the United States to 
enforce rigorously its trade remedy laws, including the antidumping, 
countervailing duty and safeguard laws. Because this issue is 
significant to many Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, 
the Conferees have made this priority a principal negotiating 
objective. Negotiators must also avoid agreements that lessen the 
effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair 
trade, as well as domestic and international safeguard provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ H.R. Rep. 107-624, at 156 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Senate Report likewise noted that ``[p]reserving the ability to 
respond promptly and effectively to unfair trade practices and to 
harmful import surges is critical to maintaining support in the United 
States for an open, rules-based trading system.''\12\ In light of these 
unambiguous expressions of support for strong trade remedy laws, any 
bill that would weaken those laws can be expected to attract 
significant controversy and substantial opposition. The miscellaneous 
trade bill, which has historically been non-controversial legislation, 
should not incorporate any bills that would have the effect of 
weakening U.S. trade remedy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ S. Rep. 107-139, at 54 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1121 Would Weaken U.S. Trade Remedy Laws and Should Not be Part of 
        the Miscellaneous Trade Bill
    H.R. 1121 proposes to repeal CDSOA. However, there is wide bi-
partisan support among Members of Congress and the public for 
CDSOA.\13\ Any legislation to repeal it would attract substantial 
controversy and strong opposition. Moreover, CDSOA is an effective 
program and its repeal would weaken the trade remedy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ For example, in 2003, following an adverse WTO decision on 
CDSOA, 70 Senators signed a letter to the President supporting the law. 
That letter expressed their concern that the Appellate Body had 
overreached by imposing new obligations on the United States, and it 
urged the President to seek express recognition of the right of WTO 
Members to maintain programs like CDSOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDSOA distributes funds to certain domestic parties when industries 
have been found to be injured by dumped and subsidized imports. The 
funding for CDSOA comes from duties collected on dumped and subsidized 
imports where dumping and subsidization continue after AD/CVD measures 
have been put into place. Where dumping or subsidization ceases as 
intended, no funds are available to distribute. CDSOA has a wide range 
of beneficiaries, including companies, farmers, ranchers, and unions, 
who are eligible to receive distributions for qualifying expenditures 
on manufacturing facilities; equipment; research and development; 
personnel training; acquisition of technology; health care benefits; 
pension benefits; environmental equipment, training, and technology; 
acquisition of raw materials and other inputs; and working capital or 
other funds needed to maintain production.
    CDSOA does not alter the methodology used by the Commerce 
Department to calculate dumping/subsidy margins, and CDSOA has no 
effect on how much duty must be paid on dumped and subsidized imports. 
CDSOA merely distributes funds pursuant to generally applicable 
criteria when unfair trade practices do not cease. Additionally, 
despite concern raised in the press and elsewhere, CDSOA has not 
created an incentive for U.S. producers to file new antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases. In fact, as the House Committee on 
Appropriations recently noted, the number of antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations conducted by Commerce has 
``decreased significantly'' in recent years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ H.R. Rep. No. 109-118, at 75 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDSOA is an effective program that enjoys broad support, and 
repealing CDSOA would weaken the trade remedy laws. H.R. 1121 is thus 
likely to attract significant controversy and should not be included as 
part of the miscellaneous trade bill.
H.R. 2473 Would Weaken U.S. Trade Remedy Laws and Would Not Be 
        Administrable, So it Should Not be Part of the Miscellaneous 
        Trade Bill
    H.R. 2473 proposes to amend the antidumping law by deleting the 
word ``entirely'' from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930.\15\ This modification would, in many cases, 
effectively make it impossible for Commerce to calculate an ``all-
others'' dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 19 U.S.C.  1673d(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``all-others'' dumping margin is the rate applied to imports 
from all non-investigated exporters. It is a weighted average of 
dumping margins calculated for individually investigated exporters. In 
calculating dumping margins for individually investigated exporters, 
Commerce may use ``facts available'' as a substitute for certain 
company-specific data when a respondent company fails to supply all the 
data necessary to perform the calculation. Those dumping margins based 
only partially on facts available are included in the weighted average 
calculated for the ``all-others'' rate. Where a dumping margin 
calculated for an individually investigated exporter is based entirely 
on ``facts available,'' however, that specific margin is currently 
excluded from the weighted average used for the ``all-others'' rate. 
The inclusion of dumping margins partially based on ``facts available'' 
in the calculation of the ``all-others'' rate is necessary, as many 
dumping margins calculated by Commerce are based on at lease some 
``facts available'' data.
    H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating the ``all-
others'' rate using any dumping margins based on any amount of ``facts 
available'' information. Thus, in many cases, it would be impossible 
for Commerce to calculate an ``all-others'' rate, because it would have 
no usable margins with which to calculate a weighted average. H.R. 2473 
would create serious administrative difficulties for Commerce because 
it provides no alternative means of calculating an ``all-others'' rate 
in such cases. Consequently, H.R. 2473 would substantially weaken the 
antidumping law, it is likely to attract significant controversy, and 
it would not be administrable. H.R. 2473 is therefore not appropriate 
for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill.
H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Should Not be Included in the Miscellaneous 
        Trade Bill
    For the reasons detailed above, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 are both 
likely to attract significant controversy and strong opposition. In 
addition, it is unlikely that H.R. 2473 would be administrable by the 
Commerce Department. Consequently, H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 do not meet 
the established criteria for inclusion in the miscellaneous trade bill. 
The Subcommittee should exclude H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 from 
consideration as part of the miscellaneous trade bill.
    Thank you for taking these comments into account as you debate 
these important matters.
                                                 Terence P. Stewart

                                 

                                                 The Garlic Company
                                      Bakersfield, California 93314
                                                    August 29, 2005
To: Ways and Means Committee Submittal

    We are the owners of The Garlic Company. The Garlic Company packs 
and ships both fresh and peeled garlic. We employ approximately 125 
full time employees and 325 employees seasonally.
    We are very strongly opposed to H.R. 1121 Miscellaneous Tariff Bill 
(MTB) calling for the repeal of the CDSOA. We are also very strongly 
opposed to H.R. 2473(in the MTB), which alters the calculations of the 
``all others'' rate AD/CVD cases. This would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    The distributions made to The Garlic Company under the CDSOA have 
helped in our survival against the massive amounts of imports from 
China. However these distributions have not been the ``windfall'' that 
one reads in many publications and hears from some politicians. The 
distributions contribute but do not fully compensate for damage done to 
our industry by unscrupulous Chinese importers. Distributions made to 
The Garlic Company have enabled us to make some improvements to our 
processing systems, which have contributed to lowering our cost. It has 
also allowed us to continue to employ our attorney group, which has 
been instrumental in defending ourselves against dishonest Chinese 
importers of fresh and peeled garlic. Through this group we have been 
able to give both Customs and the Department of Commerce valuable 
information. This information has led to a ``crack down'' on the 
never--ending scams and schemes of the unscrupulous Chinese garlic 
importers. This unscrupulous activity also harms the legitimate Chinese 
importer. In the past ten years, our group, has supplied information to 
either the Department of Commerce or Customs that has led to action 
against the following schemes:
    1) False declaration of the country of origin concerning Chinese 
garlic. This results in no duties paid or collected on Chinese garlic. 
This Chinese garlic is sold at very low prices thus driving down the 
price of domestic garlic and legitimate Chinese garlic.
    2) Under declaring the value of imported Chinese garlic to avoid 
paying higher duties. In some cases this value was placed at a one-cent 
or a fraction of a cent. This results in incorrect and small amounts of 
duties being collected. This garlic is sold at far below market prices, 
which lowers the market for domestic and legitimately imported Chinese 
garlic.
    3) Under declaring the amounts shipped within a container. This 
results in no duty being paid on the amounts undeclared within the 
container which enables the importer to sell at a lower than market 
price. This damages the market for the domestic shipper and the 
legitimate Chinese shipper.
    4) Smuggling Chinese garlic from Canada into the United States. 
This results in no duties being collected and garlic that sells below 
the market price, which damages both the domestic shipper and 
legitimate importer.
    5) Falsification of import documents. Chinese importers with high 
duty rates use the import information of Chinese importers with low or 
no duty rates. This many times occurs without the knowledge of the 
Chinese importer with the lower duty rates. This results in little or 
no duty being collected and damages the market for both the domestic 
shipper and legitimate Chinese importer.
    6) Falsely declaring the contents of a container. An importer will 
load a container with garlic and declare it to be ginger or some other 
non-duty commodity. This results in no duties paid and harms the market 
for both the domestic shipper and legitimate Chinese importer.
    These schemes and shams are something that a domestic garlic 
producer has to live with on a daily basis. Through our group's efforts 
and with the help of some legitimate Chinese importers we are able to 
gather information, which has helped both the Department of Commerce 
and Customs, curtail some of this activity. We understand these 
government agencies are understaffed and overworked so any creditable 
information that we can supply is helpful and saves tax dollars for all 
Americans. Domestic garlic producers can compete with legitimate 
Chinese garlic importers; we cannot compete against the unscrupulous 
importers of Chinese garlic. The CDSOA funds we receive partially help 
to uncover and stop the scams and schemes of the unscrupulous Chinese 
importers. This is essential to our survival.
    No country can survive as a service oriented country. We need to 
support manufacturing and agriculture jobs in this Country for the 
long-term benefit of all our citizens. We expect our politicians to do 
their part by opposing the repeal of the CDSOA.
    We also expect our politicians to support the United States 
sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by Congress by 
fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization. We understand that Congress has called for our trade 
negotiators in the ongoing Dpha round to push for revision of the WTO 
agreements. We particularly agree that CDSOA and similar programs 
relating to individual countries' use of the AD/CVD duties they collect 
will be expressly accepted as WTO consistent. We feel this is the 
method to resolve the WTO dispute that is the basis for calls to repeal 
the Byrd Amendment. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing this very 
important issue.
            With best regards,
                                                           Joe Lane

                                                        John Layous

                                 

                                    United States Steel Corporation
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of United States Steel Corporation (``U.S. Steel''), we 
would like to respond to your request for written comments with respect 
to technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty 
suspension proposals. U.S. Steel fully endorses the comments submitted 
by the American Iron and Steel Institute opposing the inclusion of H.R. 
1121 and H.R. 2473 in the miscellaneous tariff bill.
    Both of the bills at issue are controversial and have no place in a 
measure intended to include non-controversial tariff adjustments and 
other similar measures. H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''), apparently in response to a 
groundless dispute settlement decision at the World Trade Organization 
(``WTO''). CDSOA plays a critical role in assisting industries and 
workers injured by unfair trade, and Congress has clearly expressed its 
view that this issue should be resolved in ongoing WTO negotiations. 
Similarly, H.R. 2473 attempts to respond to another flawed WTO 
decision, one which involves a highly technical issue, and which could 
negatively impact enforcement of U.S. antidumping laws. Such a complex 
matter should not be addressed in a miscellaneous tariff bill.
    We appreciate the chance to comment on these issues.
                                                 Terrence D. Straub
        Senior Vice President--Public Policy & Governmental Affairs

                                 

                                                United Steelworkers
                                     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Trade Subcommittee
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of the United Steelworkers union (USW), I am writing in 
response to the request for public comments regarding technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. The United Steelworkers would like to state its strong 
objections to the inclusion of two proposals (H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473) 
in the package of bills the Committee is considering on policy grounds 
and because they are highly controversial.
    The miscellaneous tariff package should not be a vehicle for making 
major policy changes nor for addressing World Trade Organization 
compliance issues. While the USW opposes the underlying legislation, 
the process should allow for individual consideration, debate and votes 
on issues as important as that which the bills cover.
H.R. 1121:
    H.R. 1121 would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 
(CDSOA)--also known as the Byrd Amendment. CDSOA has helped to ensure 
that producing interests here in the U.S. that have been victimized by 
unfair and predatory trade practices will be able to continue to invest 
in plant, equipment and people in the face of continuing illegal 
actions by our trading partners. We must maintain the basic components 
of our trade law that give us the ability to fight for the public 
interest. The WTO decision with regard to CDSOA seeks to impose 
obligations on the U.S. that were never agreed to at the negotiating 
table. This not only undermines our economic interests, but undermines 
support for the WTO overall.
    Congress has spoken out on this issue in a number of different 
ways--primarily by asking our United States Trade Representative to 
negotiate for the retention of the CDSOA as part of the Doha Round. The 
USW's view is that this is the right policy to pursue on its own 
merits, but will also increase confidence among the public that their 
government will fight for their interests. We believe that the USTR 
needs to be given the time--and the support--necessary to be successful 
in these negotiations. And, the WTO as an institution, and other
    WTO members need to recognize that an open trading system will not 
survive based on arbitrarily imposed obligations, but must be rules-
based.
    Reaching a negotiated solution at the WTO that allows the U.S.--and 
our trading partners--to distribute tariff revenues as they do any 
other funds available to a government and with no additional 
restrictions is the appropriate course to follow.
    CDSOA is already a provision of U.S. law and, therefore, its 
retention is currently assumed in the budget baseline. Repealing CDSOA 
would be correctly viewed by many as imposing new and higher costs on 
our farmers, workers and businesses. A miscellaneous trade package 
should not increase costs to U.S. agricultural and business interests. 
As you know, CDSOA allows for the reimbursement of eligible investments 
by injured parties in plant, equipment and people. Repealing this law 
could dramatically increase the cost of doing business and diminish the 
investments that are needed for these entities to remain competitive in 
the face of unfair and predatory trade practices by our competitors. 
Miscellaneous trade legislation should not be the vehicle for a revenue 
increase on U.S. taxpayers.
    CDSOA retains enormous support among Members of Congress and the 
public. We would hope that the final package you develop would not 
include H.R. 1121 or any proposals to modify or repeal CDSOA.
H.R. 2473:
    H.R. 2473 seeks to amend the antidumping laws of the country to 
alter how the ``all other'' rate is calculated. This legislative 
proposal is intended to respond to a decision by a WTO Appellate Body. 
The ``all other'' rate should continue to be a permissible practice and 
its retention will ensure that our trade laws can continue to function 
as Congress intended. H.R. 2473 would, in fact, increase the difficulty 
in administering our trade laws--an issue which the Appellate Body 
recognized when they issued their decision.
    Inclusion of these bills would result in the proposed package 
becoming extremely controversial and would attract substantial 
opposition. The underlying issues which the bills seek to impact are 
import policy considerations on their own. As well, overreaching by the 
WTO is an important issue for the Congress to address--and should not 
seek to minimize that debate through consideration of major policy 
changes and compliance as part of what is generally considered to be a 
non-controversial package of legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                             William J. Klinefelter
                                         Assistant to the President

                                 

                                                      Wellman, Inc.
                                    Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
House Ways and Means Committee
Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the more than 1900 employees of Wellman, Inc., the 
largest manufacturer of polyester staple fiber in the United States, 
with plants located in South Carolina and Mississippi, I wish to 
express our strong opposition to H.R. 1121 in the Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill (``MTB'') calling for the repeal of the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (``CDSOA''), also known as the Byrd 
Amendment. In addition, I am also strongly opposed to H.R. 2473 (also 
contained in the MTB), which alters the calculation of the ``all 
other'' rate in AD/CVD cases, which would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    CDSOA distributes dumping and countervailing duties finally 
assessed to U.S. manufacturers harmed by dumped and subsidized imports. 
Repealing or modifying this law would be catastrophic for U.S. 
manufacturers in general and polyester staple fiber producers in 
particular. This law was enacted as a remedy for industries grievously 
injured by unfair trade, such as the U.S. polyester staple fiber 
industry. We should be strengthening our laws against unfair trade, not 
abandoning them.
    I expect that Congress will actively support manufacturing jobs in 
the U.S. by opposing repeal of the CDSOA and by supporting the U.S. 
government's sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by 
Congress by fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization.
    I urge you to vote against any effort to repeal or modify the 
CDSOA.
                                                     Thomas M. Duff
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005

The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.--These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on 
many products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low 
prices'' is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will 
help us lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.--These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on 
many products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low 
prices'' is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will 
help us lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                               Clariant Corporation
                                       Coventry, Rhode Island 02816
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 LHOB
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing on behalf of the Textile, Leather, Paper Division of 
Clariant Corporation to object to the suspension of duty on the 
substance identified in H.R. 2537, introduced by Representative 
Frelinghuysen on May 23. H.R. 2537 proposes to extend the duty 
suspension on certain organic pigments and dyes.
    In the bill, the description of the compounds for which duty 
suspension is being requested is vague but the pigments and dyes are 
apparently used in ``luminescent security applications''. According to 
the description given, the compounds in H.R. 2537 compete against 
product made by Clariant at our Martin, SC facility. (We make and sell 
Security Indicator APX liquid which is CAS # 6359-10-0, synthesizing as 
well the intermediate stage, CAS # 51517-45-4).
    Clariant is a major manufacturer of specialty chemicals and employs 
approximately 180 people in the Martin, SC plant.
    Clariant opposes the extending of temporary duty suspension in H.R. 
2537.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Dan Packer
                                  Director of Technical Development

                                 

                                                  Sun Chemical Corp
                                             Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
                                                    August 23, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Committee Members:

    We strongly oppose the elimination of import duties on the 
following pigment:
    3204.17.04     Pigment Red 188
    CI Number: 12467     Class: Monoazo
    Hue: Yellowish Red     CAS: 61847-48-1
    Use: Paint & Other
    Sun Chemical produces CI Pigment Red 188 in the United States at 
the Bushy Park plant and any suspension of import duty would put us at 
a competitive disadvantage with foreign producers.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Edwin B. Faulkner
                      Director--Product Management & Communications

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.--These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on 
many products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low 
prices'' is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will 
help us lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                               Milliken and Company
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing on behalf of Milliken & Company to strongly support 
H.R. 2573, a bill to suspend temporarily the duty on cuprammonium rayon 
yarn, introduced by Congressman Gresham Barrett, and included in the 
Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension bill.
    Milliken is one of the world's largest diversified textile and 
chemical companies, employing more than 12,000 in the United States. 
The company operates 40 manufacturing facilities in the southeast and 
is headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
    Our use of cuprammonium rayon yarn has been to fill a market demand 
for unique and highly specialized lining fabric for high-end men's and 
women's tailored suits. There is no U.S. producer of cuprammonium rayon 
yarn. For this reason Milliken and other domestic users have imported 
this yarn from Japan and Italy, the sole producers of cuprammonium 
rayon yarn in the world. Additionally, according to decisions by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission--ITC (attachment 1) and the 
Committee to Implement Trade Agreements--CITA (attachment 2); there is 
no substitutable product available domestically.
    Cuprammonium rayon fabric has a variety of end uses, ranging from 
quality linings, lingerie, fashion and casual apparel fabrics, velvet, 
ribbons and other textile fabrics for home furnishing. This product has 
a silky luster, does not cling, is soft to the hand, and has superior 
color retention properties. Most importantly, because of the fiber 
density, we are able to weave this yarn into a very fine fabric, and 
still maintain its strength. The unique characteristics of cuprammonium 
filament products justify the high price paid by domestic users--$5.00/
lb (duty paid).
    There are those that claim that acetate products, produced in the 
United States, are interchangeable with cuprammonium yarn products. 
Indeed, both acetate and cuprammonium rayon fabrics are used as lining 
for suits, however they serve very different functions in the 
marketplace--one for high-end clothing, and one for lower price point 
garments. Furthermore, there is ample data, both scientific and 
technical, that contradicts the stance that they are like products.
    Acetate yarn is usually derived from wood pulp, while cuprammonium 
rayon filament is usually derived from short cotton linters; the 
process by which these yarns are made is also quite different. Rayon 
filament fiber is much denser than acetate, meaning it can be finely 
woven and still maintain its strength. Acetate has a greater capacity 
to stretch. These products must be dyed differently and react 
differently to heat. Rayon chars and decomposes, while acetate softens 
and melts, at different temperatures. Rayon will absorb four to five 
times more water than acetate, impacting wearing comfort. And finally, 
the ``hand'', sheen, and creping action, as seen by the staffs of the 
ITC and CITA, were found to be very different. For all these reasons, 
it was established (see attached reports), that these two products were 
not substitutable.
    One last point refers to the price of both these products. 
Domestically produced Acetate is sold to the domestic textile industry 
at about $2.00/lb. In contrast, the average import price of 
cuprammonium rayon filament yarn, including the agent's mark-up and 
duty is more than double this price at $5.00/lb. Why do users of 
imported rayon yarn pay this price? Because ultimately, the marketplace 
is the arbiter and it is clear that the consumer will pay extra for 
high-quality apparel and home furnishings fabric.
    Milliken & Company is committed to a strong domestic manufacturing 
base, including the fiber, textile and apparel complex. With this 
document we seek to distinguish the cuprammonium rayon product from 
others thought to be substitutable and to argue that a duty suspension 
be considered.
    In conclusion, the temporary suspension of duty (8%) on imported 
cuprammonium rayon yarn will benefit the U.S. consumer, apparel firms, 
the converters, dyers, finishers and weavers of rayon fabric and make 
us all more competitive. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to 
this decision-making process.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Joe Salley
                                       President, Specialty Fabrics
                                 ______
                                 
U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 332-428-010
Products Apparel of cuprammonium rayon filament yarn
Requesting Party Itochu International Inc., New York, NY \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Itochu International, an importer of the subject yarn, filed 
the petition on behalf of Unifi, Inc., a yarn producer based in 
Greensboro, NC, and Symphony Fabrics, a fabric designer and converter 
in New York, NY. The reasons why Unifi and Symphony are requesting the 
preferential treatment are discussed in the ``fiber and yarn 
producers'' section of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Commission Report: USTR
Public
January 7, 2002
THIS REPORT IS A PUBLIC VERSION OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO USTR ON 
JANUARY 7, 2002. ALL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REMOVED AND 
REPLACED WITH ASTERISKS (***).
Summary of Findings
    The Commission's analysis shows that granting duty-free and quota-
free treatment to apparel made in eligible Caribbean Basin or sub-
Saharan African countries from fabrics produced in the United States of 
cuprammonium rayon filament yarn (which is not made domestically), 
regardless of the source of the yarn, would likely have a negligible 
adverse effect on U.S. producers of yarns that are made from other 
artificial fibers (e.g., acetate) and that may compete with the subject 
yarn. It also would likely have a negligible adverse effect on U.S. 
producers of apparel fabrics made from these other yarns, but would 
benefit U.S. firms producing apparel fabrics made from the subject 
yarn. The proposed preferential treatment would likely benefit U.S. 
apparel firms assembling the apparel in eligible beneficiary countries, 
and their U.S.-based workers, but could have a slight adverse effect on 
U.S. firms making the apparel domestically, and their workers. U.S. 
consumers would likely benefit from some duty savings.
Background
    On March 14, 2001, following receipt of a request from the United 
States Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted 
investigation No. 332-428, Apparel Inputs in ``Short Supply'': Effect 
of Providing Preferential Treatment to Apparel Imported from Sub-
Saharan African and Caribbean Basin Countries, under section 332(g) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) to provide advice during 
2001 in connection with petitions filed by interested parties under the 
``short supply'' provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
(AGOA) and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act 
(CBTPA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ For more information on the investigation, see the Commission's 
notice of investigation published in the Federal Register of March 21, 
2001 (66 F.R. 15886) and its website at www.usitc.gov/332s/shortsup/
shortsupintro.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
? ? ? A
? ? ? X Q1
? ? ? of Providing Preferential Treatment to ? ? ? el Imported from 
        Sub-Saharan African
    The Commission's advice in this report concerns a petition received 
by the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) on 
November 20, 2001, alleging that cuprammonium rayon filament yarn 
cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in 
a timely manner and requesting that the President proclaim preferential 
treatment for apparel made in eligible CBTPA or AGOA beneficiary 
countries from fabrics made in the United States of such yarn, 
regardless of the source of such yarn. The President is required to 
submit a report to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
Committee on Finance that sets forth the action proposed to be 
proclaimed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained from 
the Commission and the appropriate advisory committee within 60 days 
after a request is received from an interested party.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA 
the authority to determine whether particular fabrics or yarns cannot 
be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a 
timely manner. He authorized CITA and USTR to submit the required 
report to the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief discussion of the product
    The cuprammonium rayon filament yarn named in the petition is 
classified in subheading 5403.39.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTS), a residual or ``basket'' provision covering 
miscellaneous single filament yarn, (other than sewing thread), not put 
up for retail sale, of artificial fibers other than viscose rayon or 
cellulose acetate. This tariff provision covers both monofilament yarn, 
including monofilament of less than 67 decitex,\4\ and multifilament 
yarn, with or without twist. The general rate of duty on this yarn is 
8.4 percent ad valorem in 2002. The subject rayon yarn is processed 
into fabrics for use as a lining material, such as in high-quality 
clothing, and for making apparel classified in HTS chapters 61 
(apparel, knitted or crocheted) and 62 (apparel, not knitted or 
crocheted). U.S. general rates of duty on imports of knitted and woven 
apparel made of the subject yarn range from 1.8 percent to 28.6 percent 
ad valorem in 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Decitex is the linear density, or weight per unit length, of 
filament yarn (it indicates the weight in grams of 10,000 meters of 
yarn). The higher the decitex, the heavier is the yarn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The subject yarn is made of cuprammonium rayon, which is 
manufactured by chemical transformation of natural organic polymers in 
the form of cellulose derived exclusively from cotton linters (the 
short cotton fibers growing near the seeds of the cotton boll).\5\ In 
general, in the cuprammonium process, the cellulosic raw materials are 
first brought to a liquid state by dissolving them in an alkaline 
solution of ammonia and copper hydroxide. The solution is then extruded 
through the holes of a spinneret (a ``showerhead-like'' metal disc 
having many tiny holes) into newly formed filaments. As the filaments 
are ``pulled'' or drawn off the spinneret, they undergo a ``stretch 
spinning process'' to make them both narrower (or finer) and longer. 
The filaments are drawn into an acid bath, which causes the material to 
solidify (``regenerate'') into continuous filament. After extrusion, 
washing, and finishing, filaments are generally wound onto spools and 
may later be put up on warp beams to be used in weaving.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Treated wood pulp may also be used to make cuprammonium rayon 
filament yarn; however, according to the petitioner, cotton linters are 
the only cellulosic raw materials now used in world production of such 
yarn. Reportedly, the use of cotton linters instead of wood pulp allows 
for the extrusion of a finer filament and the production of a yarn 
having much higher strength. Ryoma Omuro, Assistant Manager, Fiber and 
Yarn Department, and Jeff Vercellone, Itochu International Inc., New 
York, NY, telephone interviews by Commission staff, Nov. 30 and Dec. 
18, 2001, respectively.
    \6\ U.S. Customs Service, “Fibers and Yarns: Construction and 
Classification Under the HTSUS,” Customs Bulletin and Decisions, 
vol. 34, No. 52, Dec. 27, 2000, pp. 142 and 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States does not produce cuprammonium rayon, but imports 
the subject yarn mostly from Japan.\7\ The petitioner stated that the 
imported subject yarn is a multifilament yarn made of many fine 
filaments. For example, the subject yarn having a yarn denier of 75 
consists of 54 filaments and one having a yarn denier of 100 consists 
of 70 filaments. The yarn has zero twist; a special finish or spinning 
oil is applied to each filament so that the filaments are held together 
and the yarn is lubricated for further ? ? ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ U.S. production of cuprammonium rayon reportedly ceased in 1975 
due to the significant cost of meeting clean-water standards (i.e., the 
cost of removing chemical pollutants from waste water of the 
manufacturing process). See Phyllis G. Tortora and Billie J. Collier, 
Understanding Textiles, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon & 
Schuster, 1997), p. 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
? ? ? Carribbean Basin Countries
    ? ? ? processing. The imported yarn is in an unfinished state 
(i.e., in its natural color). The dyeing and finishing operations occur 
only after the yarn is processed into fabrics (known as piece dyeing). 
The subject yarn is manufactured only in Japan and Italy and is often 
referred to in the trade as ``cupro'' or as Bemberg yarn after the 
European firm (J.P. Bemberg Co.) that first made the yarn for 
commercial use in the early 1900s. According to the petitioner, the 
Asahi Kasei Corp., of Osaka, Japan, accounts for approximately 90 
percent of world production of the yarn (marketed under the 
AsahiBemberg label), while Bemberg S.p.a. of Italy accounts for the 
remainder.\8\ The cross section of most AsahiBemberg yarn is almost 
circular, which allows for the bright colors and silky luster of the 
yarn; the brightness of the yarn may be altered by adding delustering 
agents to the solution before extrusion.\9\ The filament fiber is 
highly porous, which results in easy dyeability, high moisture and 
water absorption, and compatibility with finishing resins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Ryoma Omuro, Itochu International Inc., New York, NY, telephone 
interview by Commission staff, Dec. 6, 2001.
    \9\ Asahi Kasei Corp., ``AsahiBemberg,'' pamphlet provided by 
Itochu International Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief discussion of affected U.S. industries, workers, and consumers
    The segments of the U.S. textile and apparel industries that might 
be affected by the proposed preferential treatment include producers of 
certain fibers, yarns, and fabrics for which the subject rayon filament 
yarn, or fabrics made from such yarn, may be substitutable, as well as 
dyers and finishers of these fabrics. The following section examines 
these industry segments and certain fabric purchasers.
Fiber and yarn producers
    The United States does not produce cuprammonium rayon filament 
yarn, but does make other yarn from artificial or cellulosic fibers, 
specifically rayon and lyocell staple fibers and acetate filament.\10\ 
The production of acetate filament fiber, which is made from wood pulp, 
also involves extruding a cellulosebased solvent through a spinneret. 
However, the chemical solvents and some of the manufacturing processes 
used in acetate production differ from those used to make the subject 
rayon filament yarn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Yarns are generally made of staple fibers or filaments. A 
filament is a very long (e.g., as much as miles in length), thin strand 
of extruded material, and consists mostly of manmade fibers (artificial 
and synthetic). Staple fibers usually measure 1 inch to 4 inches in 
length and include natural fibers (e.g., cotton and wool) and cut 
lengths of filament. In general, to form yarn from staple fibers (a 
term used to distinguish natural or cut-length manufactured fibers from 
filament), the fibers are first aligned in a parallel manner, and then 
wound together (spun) so that the fibers adhere to each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rayon and lyocell staple fibers are spun into yarns much like 
cotton and wool fibers are spun into yarns. Filament fibers are 
produced as one continuous strand and, as part of the fiber 
manufacturing process, are often wound onto spools, cones, or beams as 
yarns or are combined with other filament fibers into yarns. Yarns and 
fabrics produced from staple fibers differ from those made from 
filament fibers in terms of physical qualities such as sheen, 
silkiness, texture, and durability. For example, cuprammonium rayon 
filament yarns are used to produce a shiny satin or velvet, while rayon 
or lyocell staple fiber yarns are used to make lightweight shirting or 
challis fabric.
    The sole U.S. producer of rayon staple fiber is Lenzing Fibers, 
Lowland, TN, which stated that the equipment currently used to produce 
such fiber cannot be converted to produce a rayon filament yarn and 
that a plant conversion to produce such filament yarn would require a 
high level of capital investment.\11\ The only U.S. producer of lyocell 
is Acordis Cellulosic Fibers Inc., New York, NY, which markets the 
product under the Tencel label. The firm currently makes Tencel in the 
United States only in staple form; ? ? ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Doug Noble, Lenzing Fibers, Lowland, TN, telephone interview 
by Commission staff, June 5 and 6, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ? ? ? NO FOOTNOTE REFERENCE FOR #12 \12\ ? ? ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Donald Vidler, Commercial Director, Acordis Cellulosic Fibers 
Inc., New York, NY, telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 4, 
2001. ***12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acetate filament fiber and yarn are made in the United States by 
Eastman Chemical Co., Kingsport, TN, and Celanese, Ltd., Greensboro, 
NC. Both firms stated that they consider the subject rayon filament 
yarn and acetate filament yarn to be interchangeable in the production 
of fabrics for use as linings in tailored clothing and to make certain 
women's apparel (for further information on these firms' views, see the 
``Views of Interested Parties'' section of this report).
    According to the petition filed by Itochu International, the 
subject rayon filament yarn and the acetate filament yarn are different 
in several respects. The subject yarn is much stronger because of the 
use of cotton linters as its cellulose base and, unlike the acetate 
yarn, has a smooth circular cross-section that provides a silky luster, 
softness, and more comfortable touch to the fabrics.\13\ The subject 
yarn also costs much more than the acetate yarn. According to the 
petition, the average cost per pound is $4.50 for the subject yarn and 
about $2.00 for the acetate yarn. According to industry and academic 
sources, although the subject yarn and the acetate filament yarn are 
made by similar extrusion processes and can be processed into fabrics 
having a similar appearance, there are some significant differences in 
the physical characteristics of the resulting fabrics.\14\ In 
particular, the moisture absorption rate of the subject yarn is 12.5 
percent, compared with 6.5 percent for the acetate filament yarn.\15\ 
The higher the moisture absorption rate, the more comfortable is the 
garment. The subject yarn also is stronger than the acetate yarn. The 
tenacity rate for the subject yarn is 1.7 to 2.3 grams per denier (at 
standard conditions), compared with 1.2 to 1.4 grams for the acetate 
yarn.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Itochu International, Inc., New York, NY, petition for short 
supply designation for cuprammonium rayon filament yarn addressed to 
the Chairman of CITA, submitted on behalf of Unifi, Inc., Greensboro, 
NC, and Symphony Fabrics, New York, NY, Nov. 19, 2001, p. 3.
    \14\ Lee Gordon, Senior Vice-President for Product Development, 
Unifi Inc., Greensboro, NC; Dr. David Buchanan, Professor and Assistant 
Dean, College of Textiles, North Carolina State University; and Dr. 
Marjorie Norton, Professor of Clothing and Textiles, Virginia Tech 
University, telephone interviews by Commission staff, Dec. 6, 7, and 
18, 2001, respectively.
    \15\ These absorption rates are at standard conditions of 
approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 65-percent relative humidity. 
See Marjory L. Joseph, Essentials of Textiles, 4th ed. (Holt, Rinehart 
and Winston, Inc., 1988), pp. 86 and 92.
    \16\ Tenacity is the amount of force (e.g., in grams) needed to 
break a yarn, divided by the (unstrained) denier per unit length. See 
U.S. Customs Service, ``Fibers and Yarns,'' Customs Bulletin and 
Decisions, Dec. 27, 2000, p. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An official of Unifi, Inc.,\17\ one of the petitioners and a U.S. 
producer of polyester fiber, stated that ***\18\***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Lee Gordon, Senior Vice-President for Product Development, 
Unifi Inc., telephone interviews by Commission staff, Dec. 6 and 20, 
2001.
    \18\ *** Telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 20, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric producers
    An official of Symphony Fabrics, a petitioner and a designer and 
converter of fabrics, stated that the firm uses the subject yarn in the 
production of unique and highly specialized fabrics for high-end 
women's apparel.\19\ *** An official of Hathaway Textiles, which 
designs and sells fabrics, ***. \21\ The official stated that, in 
general, both yarns have superior qualities. ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Howard Ellis, Converter, Symphony Fabrics, telephone interview 
by Commission staff, Nov. 30, 2001.
    \21\ Elizabeth Amoroso, President, Hathaway Textiles, telephone 
interview by Commission staff, Dec. 10, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ? ? ? NO FOOTNOTE REFERENCE FOR #20 \20\ ? ? ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyeing and finishing
    An official of Fitness Fabrics Ltd., a fabric converter, ***\22\**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Amy Caplin, Principal, Fitness Fabrics Ltd., New York, NY, 
telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 7, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ***20***
    An official of Duro Industries, Inc., Fall River, MA, a large 
fabric dyeing and finishing firm employing approximately 650 people, 
stated that dyeing and finishing fabric made of cuprammonium rayon 
filament yarn is a major part of its business and crucial to its 
survival in the United States.\23\ The official stated that the 
proposed preferential treatment would enable the firm to sell its 
fabric to companies that produce apparel in the CBTPA and AGOA 
countries. This official stated that the subject yarn and viscose rayon 
filament yarn, as well as the fabrics (particularly linings) made from 
these yarns, are very similar.\24\ ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ William J. Milowitz, Vice President, Duro Industries, Inc., 
Fall River, MA, written submission to CITA, Dec. 6, 2001.
    \24\ William J. Milowitz, Vice President, Duro Industries, Inc., 
telephone interview by Commission staff, Dec. 10, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Balson Hercules, New York, NY, a group of several fabric 
converters, and a division of Duro Industries, stated that it is the 
largest supplier of U.S.-made woven linings for menswear and that it 
supports the proposed preferential treatment.\25\ The firm stated that 
because the CBTPA and the AGOA currently do not grant preferential 
treatment to apparel made of linings containing foreign yarn, the firm 
has significantly reduced sales of these linings to producers that have 
moved their apparel production to the beneficiary countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ John Iason, Vice President, Balson Hercules, New York, NY, 
written submission to CITA, Dec. 6, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasers
    The Marine Corps and the Air Force have used linings made of 
cuprammonium rayon filament yarn in their dress uniforms for many 
years.\26\ *** \27\*** Officials of the Defense Supply Center of 
Philadelphia (DSCP), the agency which procures fabrics for the 
military, stated that the lining fabric for the military must be 
durable as military personnel take their jackets on and off often and 
keep their uniforms for a long period of time.\28\ ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ The ``Berry Amendment,'' enacted as Title IX of Public Law 
102-396, as amended, requires U.S. military procurement of uniforms, 
among other products, to be manufactured in the United States from 
U.S.-produced components. A ``domestic unavailability determination'' 
was made for the rayon linings because the subject yarn is not produced 
in the United States. According to an official of the Defense Supply 
Center of Philadelphia (DSCP), the Berry Amendment also requires the 
DSCP to evaluate U.S.-made substitutes. John McAndrews, Product 
Manager, Dress Clothing, DSCP, telephone interview by Commission staff, 
Sept. 17, 2001. ***
    \27\ *** telephone interviews by Commission staff, Dec. 10, 2001.
    \28\ Gail Vander Voort, Quality Assurance Specialist, and John 
McAndrews, Product Manager, Dress Clothing, DSCP, telephone interview 
by Commission staff, Dec. 7, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity comparisons
    World production capacity for cuprammonium rayon filament yarn 
currently is approximately 49 million pounds, of which 44 million 
pounds is in Japan and the remainder in Italy.\29\ The current world 
capacity utilization rate is approximately 75 percent, or almost 37 
million pounds. Japan's total production is estimated to be 33 million 
pounds in 2001. Approximately 60 percent of this amount (almost 20 
million pounds in 2001) is for domestic use and the remaining 40 
percent is exported to Asia, the European Union (EU), and the United 
States. According to Itochu International, Japan's exports of the 
subject yarn to the United States declined from about 3 million pounds 
in 1999 to 1 million pounds in 2000 and are expected to decline to 
500,000 pounds for the full year 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Information in this paragraph is from Ryoma Omuro, Itochu 
International Inc., New York, NY, telephone interview by Commission 
staff, Dec. 6, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total U.S. capacity to produce cellulose acetate filament yarn 
reportedly is expected to be 108 million pounds by the end of 2001.\30\ 
Eastman Chemical Co. and Celanese Ltd. are expected to supply 
approximately 70 million pounds to the U.S. textile industry in 2001, 
representing a capacity utilization rate of almost 65 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ V. A. Robbins, Jr., Acetate Yarn Business Unit Manager, Fibers 
Business Organization, Eastman Chemical Co., Kingsport, TN, written 
submission to the Commission, Dec. 4, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Views of interested parties
    The Commission received written statements from Eastman Chemical 
Co. and Celanese Ltd., U.S. producers of acetate, and Markbilt, Inc., a 
U.S. producer of knit fabrics of the subject rayon filament yarn. The 
two acetate producers indicated their opposition to the proposed 
preferential treatment, while Markbilt stated its support.\31\ The 
Eastman Chemical submission stated that the U.S. cellulose acetate yarn 
industry has been declining since the early 1970s due to substitution 
of other fibers, such as nylon and polyester. U.S. production capacity 
for acetate yarn declined from 500 million pounds in 1970 to 
approximately 108 million pounds by the end of 2001. The submission 
noted that, during this period, DuPont and Avtex closed their cellulose 
acetate yarn plants and no longer produce the yarn; Celanese closed a 
plant in Cumberland, MD; and Eastman Chemical reduced its capacity. The 
submission stated that Celanese and Eastman Chemical will ship only 70 
million pounds of acetate yarn to the U.S. textile industry in 2001. 
The Eastman Chemical submission stated that cuprammonium rayon filament 
yarns and acetate filament yarns are interchangeable, and that the 
acetate yarns compete well with the cuprammonium rayon yarns, 
especially in lining fabrics for men's tailored clothing. The 
submission indicated that acetate filament yarn is readily available in 
commercial quantities from two domestic producers and that granting the 
proposed preferential treatment for the subject rayon yarn would cause 
harm to the domestic acetate filament yarn industry by reducing demand 
for acetate yarn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Written submissions received by the Commission from V.A. 
Robbins, Jr., Acetate Yarn Business Unit Manager, Fibers Business 
Organization, Eastman Chemical Co., Dec. 4, 2001; H. Newton Williams, 
Vice President, Government Relations, Celanese Ltd., Dec. 7, 2001; and 
Mark L. Woltin, President, Markbilt, Inc., Dec. 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Celanese submission stated that the subject rayon filament yarn 
is a direct substitute in major end uses for acetate filament yarn, and 
that granting the proposed preferential treatment could directly 
jeopardize the jobs of 350 of their employees. The submission stated 
that the company's most recent reduction in employees was due to the 
shutdown of acetate filament yarn production in its Rock Hill, SC 
plant. The submission indicated that end users' preference to use the 
subject rayon yarn and/or fabric instead of acetate filament yarn and/
or fabric does not mean that the subject rayon and acetate filament 
yarns are not substitutable. The submission also stated that many fiber 
and yarn customers may not be commenting on the petition because of 
``economic and marketing considerations'' and suggested that the 
Commission and CITA contact neutral parties (e.g., members of academia) 
for information.
    The Markbilt submission stated that it is critical that the fabrics 
made from the subject yarn be allowed to compete fairly in the market. 
According to the submission, ``recognizing that this yarn product is 
unavailable from a domestic U.S. producer, it seems appropriate that 
the customers of such a yarn and resulting fabrics be able to enjoy the 
benefits of the AGOA and CBTPA programs.''
Probable economic effect advice \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ The Commission's advice is based on information currently 
available to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Commission's analysis shows that granting duty-free and quota-
free treatment to apparel made in eligible AGOA or CBTPA beneficiary 
countries from fabrics made in the United States of the subject yarn, 
regardless of the source of the yarn, would likely have a negligible 
adverse effect on U.S. producers of yarns that are made from other 
artificial fibers (e.g., acetate) and that may compete with the subject 
yarn. The proposed preferential treatment also would likely have a 
negligible adverse effect on U.S. firms that make apparel fabrics from 
these other yarns, but would benefit U.S. firms that make apparel 
fabrics from the subject yarns. With the enactment of the AGOA and 
CBTPA in May 2000, imports of apparel made in eligible beneficiary 
countries from fabrics made in the United States from U.S. acetate 
filament yarns became eligible to enter free of duty and quota. 
However, imports of apparel made from the subject rayon filament yarns, 
which are made only in Japan and Italy, are ineligible for such 
preferential treatment because the yarns do not meet the requirement 
that they be made in the United States. The petition, if granted, would 
re-establish the conditions of parity for the different types of 
filament yarn prior to enactment of the CBTPA and AGOA in 2000. Imports 
of apparel made in the beneficiary countries from U.S. fabrics of the 
subject yarn likely would not capture any market share from acetate 
apparel, because the two types of apparel, for the most part, do not 
compete in the same quality or price segments of the apparel market. 
The price of the subject yarn is more than twice that of the acetate 
filament yarn. If the proposed preferential treatment were granted, the 
expected increase in demand for the subject yarn would help maintain 
this price difference.
    The proposed preferential treatment would benefit U.S. producers of 
fabrics made from the subject rayon filament yarns, and their workers, 
by spurring demand for U.S. fabrics for use in the production of 
apparel in eligible AGOA and CBTPA beneficiary countries. The proposed 
preferential treatment would also benefit U.S. and other apparel firms 
making apparel in these beneficiary countries from fabrics made of the 
subject yarns. The expected increase in imports of such apparel from 
these countries, although likely to be small, would likely displace 
some imports of similar apparel from other countries. Although imports 
are believed to account for the majority of the U.S. market for apparel 
made from the subject rayon filament yarns, there could be a slight 
adverse effect on any U.S. firms producing similar apparel 
domestically.
    U.S. consumers of apparel articles made from the subject yarn would 
likely benefit from the proposed preferential treatment because 
importers and retailers are likely to pass through some of the duty 
savings to consumers in today's highly competitive retail apparel 
market.

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230--A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                                          Harodite Industries, Inc.
                                           Danville, Virginia 24540
                                                      July 26, 2005
Mr. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee

Re: Support for HR 2589 and HR 2590

    Concerning HR 2589 and HR 2590 I would like to offer my 100% 
support for these extension bills to be included in the proposed 
miscellaneous trade package.
    The yarns represented in these two bills are co--polyamide yarns 
that are manufactured in Switzerland and distributed in the United 
States by Harodite Industries, Inc. located in Taunton, Ma. The yarns 
are manufacturing aids that do not become an intregal part of any 
finished product. The yarn's makeup sets them apart and renders them 
non-competitive to anything produced in the United States. They contain 
at least 10% by weight of Nylon 12, which makes them extraordinarily 
unique.
    The various SKU's are formulated differently to obtain various 
results, but they always contain the 10% of Nylon 12. They are used as 
separation yarns for the knitting industry to separate knit trim items 
and panels, that are ultimately sewn together to produce finished 
garments. The knitting industry in this Country has suffered 
tremendously since NAFTA and the increase or total elimination of 
various import quotas. There are currently fewer than half of the 
knitters that were operating in 1998 left doing business in this 
Country. Many of those that remain are struggling financially to stay 
in business. The extension of the duty suspension on these yarns will 
go a long way to help maintain a stabilizing effect on a struggling 
U.S. knitting industry. The previous temporary suspension allowed 
Harodite Industries, Inc. to make price concessions to some major 
Textile Companies and apparel manufacturers in this Country and help 
stabilize our own economic situation. An extension of these duty 
suspensions can allow Harodite and their customers to continue to 
strengthen their market positions.
    The fusible and bonding yarns are used in various industries but 
primarily by the textile industry. They have many uses such as bonding 
selvage edges and other edge applications that would normally fray or 
unravel. The yarns are used to bond the pile to the core threads in the 
production of Chenille yarns and many other uses and potential uses, 
they add strength and provide durability to many fabrics and products 
by acting as a glue when melted without being seen or detected.
    At the present there is about $500,000.00 worth of this yarn being 
imported into the United States per year. This volume has increased 
from $250,000.00 per year when the original Bills were introduced, a 
50% increase. The duty suspension played a large part in this increased 
demand for our products. The duty rate was 8.5%, if the extension is 
not granted we will be forced to add the duty rate back to the yarn 
price which will hurt the stabilization effect that we have realized.
    On behalf of all employees at Harodite Industries, Inc. (aprox. 
100) the United States knitting industry and all other manufacturers 
that use these yarns I urge you to allow HR 2589 and HR 2590 to become 
part of the proposed miscellaneous trade package.
    Thank you for your consideration and for allowing me this forum to 
voice my support for these two bills.
    Kindest Regards
                                              Dewey M. Rutledge Jr.
                                              Yarn Division Manager

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                                          Harodite Industries, Inc.
                                           Danville, Virginia 24540
                                                      July 26, 2005
Mr. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
Chairman Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee

    Re: Support for HR 2589 and HR 2590

    Concerning HR 2589 and HR 2590 I would like to offer my 100% 
support for these extension bills to be included in the proposed 
miscellaneous trade package.
    The yarns represented in these two bills are co--polyamide yarns 
that are manufactured in Switzerland and distributed in the United 
States by Harodite Industries, Inc. located in Taunton, Ma. The yarns 
are manufacturing aids that do not become an intregal part of any 
finished product. The yarn's makeup sets them apart and renders them 
non-competitive to anything produced in the United States. They contain 
at least 10% by weight of Nylon 12, which makes them extraordinarily 
unique.
    The various SKU's are formulated differently to obtain various 
results, but they always contain the 10% of Nylon 12. They are used as 
separation yarns for the knitting industry to separate knit trim items 
and panels, that are ultimately sewn together to produce finished 
garments. The knitting industry in this Country has suffered 
tremendously since NAFTA and the increase or total elimination of 
various import quotas. There are currently fewer than half of the 
knitters that were operating in 1998 left doing business in this 
Country. Many of those that remain are struggling financially to stay 
in business. The extension of the duty suspension on these yarns will 
go a long way to help maintain a stabilizing effect on a struggling 
U.S. knitting industry. The previous temporary suspension allowed 
Harodite Industries, Inc. to make price concessions to some major 
Textile Companies and apparel manufacturers in this Country and help 
stabilize our own economic situation. An extension of these duty 
suspensions can allow Harodite and their customers to continue to 
strengthen their market positions.
    The fusible and bonding yarns are used in various industries but 
primarily by the textile industry. They have many uses such as bonding 
selvage edges and other edge applications that would normally fray or 
unravel. The yarns are used to bond the pile to the core threads in the 
production of Chenille yarns and many other uses and potential uses, 
they add strength and provide durability to many fabrics and products 
by acting as a glue when melted without being seen or detected.
    At the present there is about $500,000.00 worth of this yarn being 
imported into the United States per year. This volume has increased 
from $250,000.00 per year when the original Bills were introduced, a 
50% increase. The duty suspension played a large part in this increased 
demand for our products. The duty rate was 8.5%, if the extension is 
not granted we will be forced to add the duty rate back to the yarn 
price which will hurt the stabilization effect that we have realized.
    On behalf of all employees at Harodite Industries, Inc. (aprox. 
100) the United States knitting industry and all other manufacturers 
that use these yarns I urge you to allow HR 2589 and HR 2590 to become 
part of the proposed miscellaneous trade package.
    Thank you for your consideration and for allowing me this forum to 
voice my support for these two bills.
    Kindest Regards
                                              Dewey M. Rutledge Jr.
                                              Yarn Division Manager

                                 

                                                  Cheraw Yarn Mills
                                       Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of our strong opposition to duty 
suspension legislation for synthetic yarn. Legislation to suspend 
duties on synthetic yarn was introduced by Congressman Barney Frank and 
the bill number is H.R. 2591.
    Cheraw Yarn Mills, Inc. was founded in 1917 and has had 88 years of 
consecutive business. Cheraw manufactures some of the synthetic yarns 
targeted for duty suspension in H.R. 2591 and we are capable of being a 
meaningful supplier to the domestic market in this product. Passage of 
this bill would negatively impact our business if this legislation is 
approved.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If this industry is 
forced to absorb duty-free competition resulting from measures such as 
this, many companies will be unable to compete and will be forced to 
exit the market. I strongly encourage the Ways and Means Committee to 
deny this request.
    Please feel free to contact them directly if you have any questions 
regarding their interest in this legislation.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                             William M. Malloy, Jr.
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                          National Council of Textile Organizations
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on House Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    This letter is being written in response to your request for 
comments on the impact of suspending duties on certain acrylic/
modacrylic yarn as proposed in H.R. 2591. The duty on the yarn in 
question currently stands at 9 percent, but H.R. 2591 proposes to take 
that duty to zero. The yarn in question is classified under USHTS 
subheading 5509.31.00, defined as ``Yarn (other than sewing thread) of 
synthetic staple fibers, not put up for retail sale: Containing 85 
percent or more by weight of acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers: 
Single yarn,'' contained in Category 604. Having analyzed this market, 
NCTO has come to the conclusion that suspending or eliminating the 9 
percent duty on acrylic/modacrylic yarns would devastate the domestic 
producers of these products in a short time.
Domestic Production of Acrylic/Modacrylic Yarn
    Given the large amount of acrylic/modacrylic yarn produced in the 
United States, we were surprised by this particular piece of 
legislation. The chart below provides production quantities for acrylic 
and modacrylic yarns for the last few years. The fact that the Census 
data do not break out single and plied yarn is immaterial since plied 
yarns are formed by twisting single yarn strands. A producer can sell 
yarn as a single (5509.31.0000) or a plied (5509.32.0000) according to 
customer demand.
    Census quit reporting sales yarn production with the 2003 data, but 
most production is sold on the open market. Despite declines in 
production in recent years, the industry still is able to produce a 
massive quantity of the subject product. The decline in domestic 
acrylic/modacrylic yarn production is attributable largely to increased 
foreign competition. Another obstacle facing producers is the closure 
of the last acrylic fiber production in the U.S. Producers are forced 
to pay duty on all acrylic/modacrylic fiber imports, and the yarns made 
from these fibers do not qualify for special duty treatment with our 
free trade agreement partners around the world except in Canada.
    Several U.S. companies produce acrylic/modacrylic yarn. In fact, 
such yarns are the main product line for some domestic spinners, with 
other companies producing smaller volumes to supplement production of 
other yarn types. The attached sheet contains information on domestic 
acrylic/modacrylic yarn producers.
Acrylic/Modacrylic Yarn Imports
    Over the last five years, imports to the U.S. of yarn in HTSUS 
subheading 5509.31 have averaged nearly 8.7 million kilograms per year. 
The decline in the first half of 2005 is not unprecedented, nor does it 
indicate a permanent slackening of imported goods. Price fluctuations 
are normal due to the sometimes volatile nature of raw materials 
markets for fiber producers, and downstream price effects on spinners.
    Canada is the largest foreign supplier of the subject yarns to the 
U.S. market, with Spain in second place. Imports from Canada have been 
declining for several years, and the average price of the subject yarn 
from Canada is above the average world price. However, imports from 
Spain are growing rapidly, and the price of acrylic/modacrylic single 
yarns from Spain are below the average world price.
Apparent Domestic Market
    The apparent domestic market (ADM) is a measure of the quantity of 
yarn consumed in the United States each year. ADM is calculated with 
the following equation: Production--Exports + Imports = Apparent 
Domestic Market. These data show that imports account for a larger 
share of the domestic acrylic/modacrylic market each year, even as the 
total domestic market has declined in most years.
    Because Census does not break out single and plied yarns, we 
include import and export numbers for single and plied yarns made of 85 
percent or greater acrylic and modacrylic fibers. The apparent domestic 
market grew by 4.9 percent in 2004, as reflected by the 3.26 percent 
increase in domestic production and the 9.33 percent jump in imports.
Acrylic/Modacrylic Yarn Production and Market
    Acrylic and modacrylic yarns are used in the apparel, home 
furnishings, industrial, and craft yarn markets. In apparel, these 
yarns are used most heavily in sweaters and socks, but the yarns will 
be found in many other goods as well. In home furnishings, these yarns 
are used in upholstery fabrics, blankets, and floor coverings. Many 
pile fabrics and most artificial ``fur,'' whether used in apparel or 
home furnishing fabrics, are made from acrylic or modacrylic. Finally, 
acrylic and modacrylic are the predominant fibers used in the fast-
growing craft yarn market.
    As a manufactured fiber, acrylic and modacrylic have been 
engineered for many specified uses, depending on the type and variant 
of the fiber. In addition to the soft hand and luster, acrylic and 
modacrylic are prized for their colorfastness. Color can be imparted to 
the fiber in the extrusion process (solution dyed) or to the finished 
yarn. Both methods are commonly used. The acrylic/modacrylic yarn 
dyeing industry is modern, clean, and highly-efficient. Yarn can be 
package or skein dyed, depending on the final use and customer demand.
    Acrylic/modacrylic yarn sold to apparel and home furnishing fabric 
producers is typically sold on cones, and is widely available in 
solution dyed, yarn dyed, or greige form, depending on the customers 
order. Acrylic/modacrylic yarns sold into the craft yarn market are 
typically in skeins.
    Acrylic and modacrylic staple fiber can be sold in any length 
desired by the spinner. Short staple fiber can be spun by itself or 
blended with cotton or any other fiber of similar length. Long staple 
fiber can be spun by itself or blended with other long staple fibers, 
such as wool. The machinery used to manufacture acrylic/modacrylic yarn 
would be the same as with any other fiber, but the machinery would have 
to be calibrated to account for the fiber length.
    While acrylic and modacrylic fibers have the same properties for 
spinning purposes, there are important differences between these 
fibers. Acrylic fibers are thermoplastic, allowing producers to heat-
set for wrinkle resistance or to set permanent pleats. Acrylic has low 
moisture absorbency, is resistant to ultraviolet rays and many 
chemicals and fumes, but is not as flame resistant as many other 
manufactured fibers. Acrylic fiber is used for floor coverings, 
blankets, and apparel. Modacrylic yarns share many of the properties as 
acrylic, but have superior resistance to chemicals and combustion and 
are more heat sensitive. Modacrylic yarns are found mostly in pile 
fabrics, flame-retardant garments, draperies and carpet.
Impact of Suspending Duties
    U.S. producers of acrylic and modacrylic yarns do not merely 
compete against one another, but rather they compete on a global basis. 
The industry operates in a truly free market, with import duties the 
only protection available. Domestic acrylic/modacrylic spinners are 
lean and highly-efficient, but most operate on razor-thin margins in 
order to be price competitive with foreign producers. Yarn producers in 
many countries benefit from unfair trade advantages conferred by their 
respective governments, including subsidies, undue restrictions on 
import competition, artificially devalued currencies, etc. Suspension 
or elimination of the 9 percent import duty on these yarns would 
devastate the industry in short order. Most current acrylic/modacrylic 
yarn production, particularly the so-called commodity yarns, would be 
overrun by foreign suppliers in a few years. As noted above, domestic 
spinners of acrylic/modacrylic must pay import duties on the fiber they 
spin, and they must pay import duties when shipping this yarn abroad, 
including to most of our free trade partners.
    We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments, and we 
hope the information provided is helpful in this evaluation. If we can 
provide any further information, please do not hesitate to let us know.
                                                       Cass Johnson
                                                          President
                                 ______
                                 
Domestic Acrylic Yarn Producers
    (* denotes an NCTO member)
    The following list includes only producers of yarn for sale on the 
open market, but no vertically integrated companies producing yarn for 
internal consumption. There may be other producers not included in this 
list, but we believe we have accounted for almost all domestic 
production with the list below.

    *Amital Spinning Corporation
    New Bern, NC 28562-6924

    *Brodnax Mills
    New York, NY 10018

    *National Spinning
    Washington, NC 27889

    *Patrick Yarn Mills
    Kings Mountain, NC 28086

    *Pharr Yarns
    McAdenville, NC 28101

    Pisgah Yarn and Dyeing Co., Inc.
    Old Fort, NC 28762

    *Richmond Yarns Inc.
    Rockingham, NC 28380

    *Tuscarora Yarns, Inc.
    Mount Pleasant, NC 28124

                                 

                            Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River
                                    Fall River, Massachusetts 02721
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of our company's support of duty 
suspension legislation for acrylic fiber. Legislation to suspend duties 
on acrylic fiber was introduced by Congressman Howard Coble on April 8, 
2005, and the bill numbers are H.R. 1534, H.R. 1535 and H.R. 1536. In 
addition, Congressman Barney Frank introduced H.R. 2591 to suspend 
duties on certain acrylic yarns, at our request, and passage of this 
additional bill is also very important to us.
    Earlier this year, Solutia Inc. announced its departure from the 
acrylic fiber market as part of a broader reorganization plan. Solutia 
was the last remaining reliable producer of acrylic fiber in the U.S. 
and its exit from the market was a serious blow to U.S. textile 
manufacturers who use these fibers. In 2005, the U.S. market demand for 
acrylic fiber is estimated to be 198 million pounds.
    The U.S. textile industry is already facing tremendous market 
pressures due to the lifting of textile and apparel quotas on January 
1, 2005, and increased competition from China. If our industry is 
forced to absorb an eight percent average duty on imported acrylic 
fibers, many of us will be unable to compete and will be forced to exit 
the market for our product lines that utilize these fibers. If this 
happens, dozens of plants and thousands of workers across the country 
will be adversely affected.
    We understand that Congress has provided the duty suspension 
process to address situations such as this, and we strongly encourage a 
favorable report by the Committee on these bills.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or 
need additional information on this request.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Larry A. Liebenow
                                                  President and CEO

                                 

                                               Richmond Yarns, Inc.
                                   Rockingham, North Carolina 28380
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am writing to let you know of Richmond Yarns Inc.'s strong 
opposition to duty suspension legislation for synthetic Yarn. 
Legislation to suspend duties on synthetic yarn was introduced by 
Congressman Barney Frank and the bill number is H.R. 2591.
    Richmond Yarns is a Yarn Manufacturer that exclusively produces 
Synthetic Yarns. Our company is located in Ellerbe, NC and employs 250 
people. We are very capable of supplying the domestic market; Our 
Company has the capacity to produce 13,000,000 pounds per year of 
synthetic yarn (acrylic, rayon, polyester) that H.R. 2591 targets for 
duty suspension.
    Our company has already sustained tremendous pressure due to the 
lifting of Textile and Apparel quotas on January 1, 2005. If we are 
forced to absorb duty-free competition resulting from measures such as 
this, it will make it impossible for our company to compete and force 
us to leave the market, which will result in the loss of 250 jobs.
    I understand that Congress has provided duty suspension process to 
address situations where domestic capacity does not exist. However, 
based on the production capacity of our company on this product 
category, I do not believe this duty suspension merits approval, and 
Richmond Yarns, Inc and its 250 employees strongly encourages the Ways 
and Means Committee to deny this request.
    If you have any questions about our Company and its operation you 
can contact me at 910-652-4978.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                            Kenneth L. Goodman, Jr.
                                                          President

                                 

                        Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (FL-22)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    These comments regarding H.R. 2596, H.R. 2597, and H.R. 2598 are 
submitted on behalf of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 
(``MEMA''). MEMA exclusively serves the aftermarket and original 
equipment automotive and heavy-duty product manufacturing industry. 
MEMA supports its members through its three market segment 
associations: Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), 
Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA) and Original Equipment 
Suppliers Association (OESA). Among MEMA's members are U.S. companies 
that manufacture in the United States the products at issue in the 
three bills.
    H.R. 2596 and H.R. 2598 are bills to temporarily suspend the duties 
on certain steel leaf spring leaves, and H.R. 2597 is a bill to 
temporarily suspend the duty on suspension system stabilizer bars. MEMA 
believes that these bills, and other similar bills regarding steel 
products, are indicative of the untenable steel situation that 
continues to exist in the United States.
    U.S. steel consumers (that is, U.S. companies that purchase steel 
and use it to manufacture automotive and heavy-duty products) cannot 
obtain the steel they need in a timely manner and at a sustainable 
price. This untenable steel situation is caused by a variety of 
factors, including unnecessary antidumping and countervailing duties 
and the inability (or unwillingness) of domestic steel producers to 
meet the needs of U.S. steel consumers. As a result, the ultimate 
customers of steel products are looking offshore to satisfy their 
needs, but this offshore sourcing is hurting domestic production of 
automotive and heavy duty products.
    In recent years the automotive supplier industry (including heavy 
duty product manufacturers), comprised of eight hundred major 
suppliers, has experienced declining profits, lay-offs and 
bankruptcies.\1\ These companies collectively employ more than 700,000 
domestic employees (approximately seven times the domestic employees 
employed by the U.S. steel industry).\2\ These bankruptcies, lay-offs 
and declining profits by the automotive supplier industry are reflected 
in the overall decline in the Dow Jones Auto Parts index since December 
31, 2003.\3\ By contrast, the Dow Jones Steel index has increased by 
more than 70% throughout 2004 and into 2005.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Brian C. Becker and Kevin A. Hassett, The Steel Industry: 
An Automotive Supplier Perspective, (Feb. 2005) at 16. Available at: 
http://www.citac.info/steeltaskforce/attach/MEMA--Study--May--2005.pdf.
    \2\ See id. at 14.
    \3\ Id. at 19.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The introduction of these three bills (and others like it) is also 
evidence of the increased import competition in automotive supply 
products, due in part to the ability of offshore producers to obtain 
quality steel in a timely fashion and at an economical price. 
Automotive supply imports increased by more than 12% in 2004 (through 
November) and the automotive supplier industry has a trade imbalance 
that has increased by more than 270% from 1998 through November 
2004.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although MEMA does not take any position on the proposed bills, 
this letter is intended to convey to Congress the severity of the steel 
situation that continues to plague U.S. steel consumers. When this 
situation induces the ultimate customers of steel products to source 
offshore instead of domestically, Congress needs to act quickly to 
implement a solution that will allow for sustainable manufacturing in 
the United States.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Nancy A. Noonan

                                 

                        Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (FL-22)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    These comments regarding H.R. 2596, H.R. 2597, and H.R. 2598 are 
submitted on behalf of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 
(``MEMA''). MEMA exclusively serves the aftermarket and original 
equipment automotive and heavy-duty product manufacturing industry. 
MEMA supports its members through its three market segment 
associations: Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), 
Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA) and Original Equipment 
Suppliers Association (OESA). Among MEMA's members are U.S. companies 
that manufacture in the United States the products at issue in the 
three bills.
    H.R. 2596 and H.R. 2598 are bills to temporarily suspend the duties 
on certain steel leaf spring leaves, and H.R. 2597 is a bill to 
temporarily suspend the duty on suspension system stabilizer bars. MEMA 
believes that these bills, and other similar bills regarding steel 
products, are indicative of the untenable steel situation that 
continues to exist in the United States.
    U.S. steel consumers (that is, U.S. companies that purchase steel 
and use it to manufacture automotive and heavy-duty products) cannot 
obtain the steel they need in a timely manner and at a sustainable 
price. This untenable steel situation is caused by a variety of 
factors, including unnecessary antidumping and countervailing duties 
and the inability (or unwillingness) of domestic steel producers to 
meet the needs of U.S. steel consumers. As a result, the ultimate 
customers of steel products are looking offshore to satisfy their 
needs, but this offshore sourcing is hurting domestic production of 
automotive and heavy duty products.
    In recent years the automotive supplier industry (including heavy 
duty product manufacturers), comprised of eight hundred major 
suppliers, has experienced declining profits, lay-offs and 
bankruptcies.\1\ These companies collectively employ more than 700,000 
domestic employees (approximately seven times the domestic employees 
employed by the U.S. steel industry).\2\ These bankruptcies, lay-offs 
and declining profits by the automotive supplier industry are reflected 
in the overall decline in the Dow Jones Auto Parts index since December 
31, 2003.\3\ By contrast, the Dow Jones Steel index has increased by 
more than 70% throughout 2004 and into 2005.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Brian C. Becker and Kevin A. Hassett, The Steel Industry: 
An Automotive Supplier Perspective, (Feb. 2005) at 16. Available at: 
http://www.citac.info/steeltaskforce/attach/MEMA--Study--May--2005.pdf.
    \2\ See id. at 14.
    \3\ Id. at 19.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The introduction of these three bills (and others like it) is also 
evidence of the increased import competition in automotive supply 
products, due in part to the ability of offshore producers to obtain 
quality steel in a timely fashion and at an economical price. 
Automotive supply imports increased by more than 12% in 2004 (through 
November) and the automotive supplier industry has a trade imbalance 
that has increased by more than 270% from 1998 through November 
2004.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although MEMA does not take any position on the proposed bills, 
this letter is intended to convey to Congress the severity of the steel 
situation that continues to plague U.S. steel consumers. When this 
situation induces the ultimate customers of steel products to source 
offshore instead of domestically, Congress needs to act quickly to 
implement a solution that will allow for sustainable manufacturing in 
the United States.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Nancy A. Noonan

                                 

                        Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
                                               Washington, DC 20036
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (FL-22)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    These comments regarding H.R. 2596, H.R. 2597, and H.R. 2598 are 
submitted on behalf of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 
(``MEMA''). MEMA exclusively serves the aftermarket and original 
equipment automotive and heavy-duty product manufacturing industry. 
MEMA supports its members through its three market segment 
associations: Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), 
Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA) and Original Equipment 
Suppliers Association (OESA). Among MEMA's members are U.S. companies 
that manufacture in the United States the products at issue in the 
three bills.
    H.R. 2596 and H.R. 2598 are bills to temporarily suspend the duties 
on certain steel leaf spring leaves, and H.R. 2597 is a bill to 
temporarily suspend the duty on suspension system stabilizer bars. MEMA 
believes that these bills, and other similar bills regarding steel 
products, are indicative of the untenable steel situation that 
continues to exist in the United States.
    U.S. steel consumers (that is, U.S. companies that purchase steel 
and use it to manufacture automotive and heavy-duty products) cannot 
obtain the steel they need in a timely manner and at a sustainable 
price. This untenable steel situation is caused by a variety of 
factors, including unnecessary antidumping and countervailing duties 
and the inability (or unwillingness) of domestic steel producers to 
meet the needs of U.S. steel consumers. As a result, the ultimate 
customers of steel products are looking offshore to satisfy their 
needs, but this offshore sourcing is hurting domestic production of 
automotive and heavy duty products.
    In recent years the automotive supplier industry (including heavy 
duty product manufacturers), comprised of eight hundred major 
suppliers, has experienced declining profits, lay-offs and 
bankruptcies.\1\ These companies collectively employ more than 700,000 
domestic employees (approximately seven times the domestic employees 
employed by the U.S. steel industry).\2\ These bankruptcies, lay-offs 
and declining profits by the automotive supplier industry are reflected 
in the overall decline in the Dow Jones Auto Parts index since December 
31, 2003.\3\ By contrast, the Dow Jones Steel index has increased by 
more than 70% throughout 2004 and into 2005.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Brian C. Becker and Kevin A. Hassett, The Steel Industry: 
An Automotive Supplier Perspective, (Feb. 2005) at 16. Available at: 
http://www.citac.info/steeltaskforce/attach/MEMA--Study--May--2005.pdf.
    \2\ See id. at 14.
    \3\ id. at 19.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The introduction of these three bills (and others like it) is also 
evidence of the increased import competition in automotive supply 
products, due in part to the ability of offshore producers to obtain 
quality steel in a timely fashion and at an economical price. 
Automotive supply imports increased by more than 12% in 2004 (through 
November) and the automotive supplier industry has a trade imbalance 
that has increased by more than 270% from 1998 through November 
2004.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although MEMA does not take any position on the proposed bills, 
this letter is intended to convey to Congress the severity of the steel 
situation that continues to plague U.S. steel consumers. When this 
situation induces the ultimate customers of steel products to source 
offshore instead of domestically, Congress needs to act quickly to 
implement a solution that will allow for sustainable manufacturing in 
the United States.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Nancy A. Noonan

                                 

                                MT Picture Display Corp. of America
                                                   Troy, Ohio 45373
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of MT Picture Display Corporation of America (MTPDA), in 
Troy, Ohio, I am writing in support of H.R. 2624, a bill, introduced by 
Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), to suspend temporarily the duties on a 
number of components for colored picture tubes.
    MTPDA is a joint venture between Panasonic and Toshiba to 
manufacture very large size, and some smaller, CRTs. It is located in 
Miami County Ohio and, with over 500 employees, is one of the largest 
private employers in the county. Since its ground breaking in 1988 the 
factory has invested over $490 million in the facility. With the 
closing of U.S. colored picture tubes factories owned by Mitsubishi, 
Zenith, Thomson, Philips, Toshiba, and Hitachi, MTPDA is the last 
original equipment (OEM) CRT supplier in the United States. Only Sony 
continues to make CRTs, for its own domestic use, in the United States. 
In fact, with the closing of the last CRT glass-making plant last year, 
we are part of only a handful of companies still making television 
components in the United States.
    Currently we produce widescreen (16:9) and conventional (4:3) 
curved and flat CRTs in sizes ranging from 30'' to 36''. We also 
produce 7'' projection TV tubes for a variety of customers, including 
Panasonic, Hitachi, Sanyo, Sharp, Mitsubishi, JVC, and Sony.
    H.R. 2624 covers 15 imported components that no longer are 
manufactured in the United States. The components are glass panels and 
funnels, electron guns and aperture masks for various model CRTs. The 
specific components are:

      30'' widescreen Pure Flat glass panel
      30'' widescreen Pure Flat glass funnel
      32'' curved glass panel 32'' curved glass funnel
      32'' Pure Flat glass panel
      32'' Pure Flat glass funnel
      34'' widescreen Pure Flat glass panel
      34'' widescreen Pure Flat glass funnel
      36'' curved glass panel 36'' curved glass funnel
      Glass envelope for projection CRT
      Aluminum-killed steel aperture mask
      Invar steel aperture mask
      CRT electron gun
      Projection tube electron gun

    The bill proposes a three-year duty suspension for all the above 
components, except for the 32'' flat glass panel, which would be 
reduced to 3.0%. It is estimated that the combined one-year savings to 
the company for the elimination or reduction of these duties would be 
$4,965,000.
    MTPDA's primary competitor is not from Asia. Instead, the primary 
competitors for our factory are the Mexican CRT factories of Samsung, 
Thomson and LG-Philips--the last two companies had previously 
manufactured CRTs in the United States. The suspension of duties on the 
five CRT components--glass panels, funnels and envelopes; electron 
guns; and aperture masks--will put MTPDA on the same playing field as 
our competitors in Mexico, where duties on these same imported 
components are 0%.
    Unfortunately, with the recent closing of Techneglas in Ohio, there 
are no manufacturers in the United States for picture tube glass, the 
electron guns or the specialty steel needed to manufacture aperture 
masks. Thus, the 5.4% U.S. duties on these items, once imposed to 
protect the domestic television industry, now simply hurt what's left 
of the domestic television industry.
    Sales revenues for MTPDA have dropped dramatically since 2000. This 
year, factory sales are only 70% compared to budget, and will be about 
40% of what we sold in 2000. Industry-wide, CRT sales are running at 
only 60% of last year's results. Therefore, the elimination (and in one 
case, reduction) of these duties on our imported components will lower 
our costs and put MTPDA on a more level playing field and competitive 
basis with manufacturers in Mexico. We appreciate your consideration of 
our request and we hope the Ways and Means Committee will support H.R. 
2624, and that it can be enacted this year as part of a miscellaneous 
tariff and trade bill.
                                                      Steve Lammers
                                        General Manager, Operations

                                 

                                              Sony Electronics Inc.
                                       Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1236 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Sony Electronics Inc. American Video Glass Company 
(``AV''), the last remaining producer of television cathode ray tube 
(``CRT'') glass in the United States, I thank you for the opportunity 
to submit comments in support of the captioned duty suspension bill. 
This legislation would suspend temporarily the duty on various imported 
CRT components, mainly video glass products.
    AV has serious reservations about the passage of H.R. 2624 because 
our AV manufacturing plant located in Western Pennsylvania currently 
produces or can produce the same types of CRT glass funnels and front 
panels covered by this bill. Duty free status for these CRT glass 
components would create incentives for the procurement of foreign made 
CRT glass and erode the domestic market for AV's products. AV stands 
ready to fulfill the needs of domestic CRT makers who would otherwise 
require imported CRT glass.
    AV does not take a position as to merchandise covered in this bill 
other than funnels and panels.
    Should you have any questions about our opposition to the portions 
of this legislation that cover CRT glass panels and funnels, please do 
not hesitate to contact me.

                                                       David Newman
                                                     Senior Counsel

                                 

                               Association of Food Industries, Inc.
                                          Neptune, New Jersey 07753
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    These comments are submitted on behalf of the Association of Food 
Industries, Inc. (AFI) in support of H.R. 2816, the ``Fair Trade In 
Pouch Tuna Act of 2005.'' This bill would provide duty-free treatment 
for certain imports of prepared or preserved tuna from members of the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). AFI is a trade 
association composed of approximately 200 U.S. member-companies that 
import a wide variety of food products from around the world, including 
prepared or preserved tuna from ASEAN members.
    AFI agrees with the findings set forth in the text of H.R. 2816. 
Specifically, as U.S. importers and distributors of the product, 
member-companies of AFI can testify to that fact that the provision for 
so-called ``pouch tuna'' embodied in the extension of the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act has placed imports from ASEAN members at a significant 
competitive disadvantage. Approval of this bill would equalize 
competitive treatment of this product, and provides the United States 
with a cost-effective means for providing economic assistance to 
important ASEAN allies that were economically devastated by the 
December 2004 tsunami.
    For the reason set forth herein and in the text of H.R. 2816, AFI 
supports approval of this bill.
                                                   Jeffrey S. Levin
                Counsel to the Association of Food Industries, Inc.

                                 

Statement of Jeff Watters, Del Monte Foods/StarKist Brands, Pittsburgh, 
                              Pennsylvania
    This statement is submitted by StarKist Seafood in response to the 
request for comments on the Fair Trade in Pouch Tuna Act of 2005, H.R. 
2816. StarKist Seafood is the U.S. market leading producer of canned 
and pouched tuna, and produces the majority of its products in American 
Samoa. For the reasons set forth below, StarKist Seafood opposes the 
duty relief measures on pouch tuna processed by Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries proposed by the Act.

Despite assertions in the Act to the contrary, ASEAN nations are not at 
a competitive disadvantage to Andean nations.

      The Fair Trade in Pouch Tuna Act of 2005 (``Act'') 
asserts that the economies of the ASEAN nations (Brunei, Cambodia, 
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and 
Vietnam) are at a competitive disadvantage to the beneficiary nations 
of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (Ecuador, 
Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru) due to the duty-free status of pouched 
tuna imports into the U.S. from the Andean nations.
      However, as the May 2002 USITC Fact Sheet on the Likely 
Impact of U.S. Tariff Modification for Tuna Imported Countries from 
ATPA Beneficiaries indicated, ``ASEAN countries have long been the 
largest foreign suppliers of tuna to the U.S. market (indeed, to the 
world). Their dominant position is due mainly to low labor costs, 
stable business relationships with developed countries, a long history 
of canning food products, and an abundance of tuna resources in the 
western tropical Pacific.''
      ASEAN nation wage rates are significantly lower than 
those of tuna exporting Andean nations. Ecuador's wages for cannery 
workers are 15% higher than the Philippines, 17% higher than 
Thailand's, 114% higher than Malaysia's, and 380% higher than 
Indonesia's and Vietnam's. Clearly, Ecuador's lower rate of duty for 
pouch tuna exports is more than offset by far lower wage rates in 
Southeast Asia.

The United States is currently in negotiations with Thailand toward a 
free trade agreement.

      In October 2003, President Bush announced his intent to 
enter into Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with Thailand in 
accordance with legislative procedures specified by Congress. Those 
negotiations are ongoing and tariffs on tuna imports are under active 
consideration.
      Unilaterally granting duty-free access to ASEAN pouch 
tuna will significantly diminish the leverage of U.S. FTA negotiators.

Any significant increase in U.S. tuna imports from ASEAN nations will 
have a devastating effect on the economy of American Samoa.

      Currently StarKist Seafood produces the majority of its 
tuna products in American Samoa. One other tuna processor, Chicken of 
the Sea, also has tuna manufacturing facilities in American Samoa.
      The United States territory of American Samoa lays 2,300 
miles southwest of Hawaii, covers a land area of 76 square miles, has a 
population of less than 70,000, and a per capita income of $4,300 per 
year.
      The U.S. tuna industry provides 88% of the private sector 
employment in American Samoa.
      The U.S. processors on American Samoa face significant 
wage disparities when compared with major tuna exporter countries 
(including ASEAN).
      Imports from Andean nations, due to their Eastern 
Tropical Pacific (ETP) fish source, do not compete with those from 
American Samoa. The ETP is a fully utilized, limited fishery and is 
much smaller than the Western Tropical Pacific (WTP) which supplies the 
raw fish to Samoa and the ASEAN countries.
      As a result of fish sourcing from the vast resource in 
the WTP, tuna imports from ASEAN nations directly compete with the 
production in American Samoa.
      A decrease in production or departure of one or both of 
the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate the local economy 
resulting in massive layoffs and insurmountable financial difficulties 
for American Samoa.

Conclusion:

    In closing, StarKist Seafoods opposes the Fair Trade in Pouch Tuna 
Act of 2005, H.R. 2816.

                                 

                        Spalding, A Division of Russell Corporation
                                   Springfield, Massachusetts 01104
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    In response to the Subcommittee's request for written Comments from 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals, I am writing to you in support 
of an important bill; H.R. 2817. This bill would suspend temporarily 
the duty on composite (neither leather, rubber, nor synthetic) 
basketballs (provided for in subheading 9506.62.80), thereby helping 
Spalding to reduce costs incurred as a result of the high duty rates 
assessed on these products. Spalding is located in Springfield, 
Massachusetts and imports composite basketballs due to the high demand 
here in the U.s. and the lack of domestic production.
    Currently, composite basketballs (neither leather, rubber, nor 
synthetic) imported into the United States face 4.8% in duties. 
Spalding imports approximately $10.6 million of composite basketballs 
(neither leather, rubber, nor synthetic) annually and we pay 
approximately $508,000 in duties each year. There currently are no U.S. 
companies manufacturing composite basketballs that are made neither of 
leather, rubber, nor synthetic.
    Given that the high duties faced by Spalding are not being 
justifiably assessed to protect a U.S. industry, we hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report this bill as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the bill is 
designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. manufacturing 
operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these 
provisions or require additional information.
                                                  Scott H. Creelman
                            Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                        Spalding, A Division of Russell Corporation
                                   Springfield, Massachusetts 01104
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    In response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments from 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals, I am writing to you in support 
of an important bill; H.R. 2818. This bill would suspend temporarily 
the duty on leather basketballs (provided for in subheading 
9506.62.80). thereby helping Spalding to reduce costs incurred as a 
result of the high duty rates assessed on these products. Spalding is 
located in Springfield, Massachusetts and imports leather basketballs 
due to the high demand here in the U.S. and the lack of domestic 
production.
    Currently, leather basketballs imported into the United States face 
4.8% in duties. Spalding imports approximately $786,000 of leather 
basketballs annually, and we pay approximately $37,700 each year. There 
currently are no U.S. companies manufacturing leather basketballs.
    Given that the high duties faced by Spalding are not being 
justifiably assessed to protect a U.S. industry, we hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report this bill as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the bill is 
designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. manufacturing 
operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these 
provisions or require additional information.
                                                  Scott H. Creelman
                            Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                        Spalding, A Division of Russell Corporation
                                   Springfield, Massachusetts 01104
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    hl response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments from 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals, I am writing to you in support 
of an important bill; H.R. 2819. This bill would suspend temporarily 
the duty on rubber basketballs (provided for in subheading 9506.62.80), 
thereby helping Spalding to reduce costs incurred as a result of the 
high duty rates assessed on these products. Spalding is located in 
Springfield, Massachusetts and imports rubber basketballs due to the 
high demand here in the U.S. and the lack of domestic production.
    Currently, rubber basketballs imported into the United States face 
4.8% in duties. Spalding imports approximately $5.4 million of rubber 
basketballs annually, and we pay approximately $260,000 each year in 
duties. There currently are no U.S. companies manufacturing rubber 
basketballs.
    Given that the high duties faced by Spalding are not being 
justifiably assessed to protect a U.S. industry, we hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report this bill as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the bill is 
designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. manufacturing 
operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these 
provisions or require additional information.
                                                  Scott H. Creelman
                            Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                        Spalding, A Division of Russell Corporation
                                  Springfield, Massachusetts, 01104
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
11 04 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
11 06 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    In response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments from 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals, I am writing to you in support 
of an important bill; H.R. 2820. This bill would suspend temporarily 
the duty on certain volleyballs (provided for in subheading 9506.62.80 
of 9902.95.10) thereby helping Spalding to reduce costs incurred as a 
result of the high duty rates assessed on these products. Spalding is 
located in Springfield-- Massachusetts and imports volleyballs due to 
the high demand here in the U.S. and the lack of domestic production..
    Currently, volleyballs imported into the United States face 4.8% in 
duties. Spalding imports approximately $540,000 of volleyballs annually 
and we pay approximately $30,000 in duties each year. There currently 
are no U.S. companies manufacturing volleyballs.
    Given that the high duties faced by Spalding are not being 
justifiably assessed to protect a U.S. industry, we hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report this bill as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the bill is 
designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. manufacturing 
operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these 
provisions or require additional information.
                                                  Scott H. Creelman
                            Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                        Spalding, A Division of Russell Corporation
                                   Springfield, Massachusetts 01104
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    In response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments from 
parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals, I am writing to you in support 
of an important bill; H.R. 2821. This bill would suspend temporarily 
the duty on synthetic basketballs (provided for in subheading 
9506.62.80), thereby helping Spalding to reduce costs incurred as a 
result of the high duty rates assessed on these products. Spalding is 
located in Springfield, Massachusetts and imports synthetic basketballs 
due to the high demand here in the U.S. and the lack of domestic 
production.
    Currently, synthetic basketballs imported into the United States 
face 4.8% in duties. Spalding imports approximately $1.2 million of 
synthetic basketballs annually, and we pay approximately $57,600 in 
duties each year. There currently are no U.S. companies manufacturing 
synthetic basketballs.
    Given that the high duties faced by Spalding are not being 
justifiably assessed to protect a U.S. industry, we hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report this bill as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the bill is 
designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. manufacturing 
operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these 
provisions or require additional information.
                                                  Scott H. Creelman
                            Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                                           Chemtura
                                      Middlebury, Connecticut 06749
                                                  September 2, 2005
David Kavanaugh
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

    Re: H.R. 2833
    Chemtura is strongly opposed to the proposal to temporarily remove 
duties on the following product:

      2 (3H)-benzothiazolethione sodium salt (CAS 2492-26-4) 
(Chemtura's product name is Sodium MBT) as requested in HR 2833

    Chemtura manufactures approximately 24 million pounds per year in 
our Geismar, Louisiana plant. This product is an intermediate and is 
chemically converted into a family of rubber chemical Accelerators 
(Chemtura trade name Thiazoles and Sulfenamides) in the U.S.
    Elimination of this duty into the U.S. would unfairly advantage 
European manufacturers, while Chemtura would be disadvantaged by being 
required to pay duties when importing into Europe. The EU import duty 
is 6.5 %, the same as the current U.S. rate when importing this 
material. Further, Chemtura will lose significant market share, 
resulting in reduced production and employment at the Geismar facility. 
In addition Chemtura is required by new regulations to invest 
significant funds for environmental protection, where some of our 
competitors in other regions are not being held to the same standards. 
If Chemtura faces lower priced competition, it may not be able to make 
those investments and will be forced to halt production.
    The proposal to reduce the duties is being made by a major European 
based competitor of Chemtura, and is clearly designed to put Chemtura 
at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
            Sincerely,
                                                Elizabeth Thomasino
                                       Manager, Imports and Customs

                                                      Lloyd N. Moon
                    Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs

                                 

                        Spalding, A Division of Russell Corporation
                                   Springfield, Massachusetts 01104
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    In response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments from 
parties interested in technical corrections to U,S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals, I am writing to you in support 
of an important bill; H.R. 2856. This bill would suspend temporarily 
the duty on certain inflatable balls (kickballs) other than basketballs 
and volleyballs (provided for in subheading 9506.62.80 of 9902.95.07), 
thereby helping Spalding to reduce costs incurred as a result of the 
high duty rates assessed on these products. Spalding is located in 
Spru1gfield, Massachusetts and imports kickballs due to the high demand 
here in the U.S. and the lack of domestic production.
    Currently, kickballs imported into the United States face 4.8% in 
duties. Spalding imports approximately $650,000 of kickballs annually, 
and we pay approximately $36,000 in duties each year. There currently 
are no U.s. companies manufacturing inflatable kickballs.
    Given that the high duties faced by Spalding are not being 
justifiably assessed to protect a U.S. industry, we hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report this bill as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the bill is 
designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. manufacturing 
operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on these 
provisions or require additional information.
                                                  Scott H. Creelman
                            Chief Executive Officer, Spalding Group

                                 

                                  Grocery Manufacturers Association
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) appreciates this 
opportunity to provide our views to the Subcommittee on Tradein support 
of H.R. 2896, which would remove the 100% tariff currently imposed on 
chicory and provide relief to affected Louisiana coffee companies.
    GMA is the world's largest association of food, beverage and 
consumer product companies. With U.S. sales of more than 500 billion 
dollars, GMA member companies employ more than 2.5 million workers in 
all 50 states.
    This tariff on chicory has been imposed since 1999 when the World 
Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Board authorized the United 
States to enact retaliatory tariffs on European Union exports. This was 
in retaliation for the WTO decision against the EU for its illegal ban 
on hormone treated U.S. beef. Chicory was one of the products on which 
the United States Trade Representative's office chose to impose a 100% 
ad valorem tariff. Virtually all the chicory used in the United States 
for chicory-coffee blends comes from one small family company in 
France, so this entire U.S. industry is in effect also suffering as a 
result of retaliation against the EU. This has had a profoundly 
negative effect on U.S. chicory-coffee blend producers, as they must 
pass along this expense to consumers via significant price markups.
    As a part of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, these 
significant retaliations were to have been periodically rotated (see 
Section 407, which calls for this modification to Section 301 of the 
Trade Act of 1974), so-called ``carousel'' retaliation. But, to date, 
no such carouseling of products has occurred; chicory coming into the 
U.S. has experienced this 100% tariff since 1999. GMA has filed 
comments with the 301 Committee dating back to 2000, urging the 
Committee to rotate away from chicory. This tariff affects a number of 
coffee products. There is no non-European source for the chicory needed 
for these products. The tariff has resulted in an estimated annual five 
million dollar impact on U.S. consumers.
    GMA believes that it is time to sanction Section 407 of the Trade 
Act of 2000 and to finally give the U.S. chicory-coffee producing 
industry a rest from this harmful tariff. Certainly, what with the 
current crisis in the State of Louisiana, there can be no better time 
to release this industry, so equated with that state, from the unfair 
effects of this tariff.
    The Grocery Manufacturers Association appreciates this opportunity 
to present our views on this matter.
                                                        Mary Sophos
            Senior Vice President, Chief Government Affairs Officer

                                 

                                            Chemalloy Company, Inc.
                                      Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010
                                                    August 19, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Subcommittee on Trade:

    We are writing to you today to express the serious concerns of the 
Chemalloy Company, Inc. (``Chemalloy'') regarding H.R. 2954, introduced 
on June 16, 2005, legislation which would suspend the duty on imports 
of manganese metal flake. Chemalloy is located in Bryn Mawr, 
Pennsylvania, and has 90 employees. Chemalloy has purchased its 
manganese metal raw material exclusively from South Africa and has been 
doing so for over 20 years. We use these products for the production of 
manganese nuggets for primary steel production, foundry and chemical 
products, and welding rod fluxes. This legislation would almost wholly 
benefit imports of manganese metal flake from the People's Republic of 
China at the expense of imports from the Republic of South Africa, and 
we hope that the Subcommittee will not include this legislation in any 
miscellaneous tariff bill as it is both controversial and excessively 
expensive.
    Since there is no U.S. production of manganese metal flake, 
Chemalloy relies upon South African imports, and South Africa is one of 
the most reliable manganese suppliers to the U.S. market. China is the 
only other major source of supply. However, Chinese products contain 
selenium, an environmentally toxic material which also results in an 
inferior product that is not acceptable or desirable for many 
applications.
    Our South African supplier, Manganese Metal Company, indicates to 
us that its financial viability depends on its ability to export to the 
United States. South African manganese metal flake exports benefit from 
GSP duty-free treatment pursuant to the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act (``AGOA''), which is not available to China. Therefore, this 
legislation will provide a very valuable duty suspension that will 
effectively benefit only one major exporter--the People's Republic of 
China.
    While Chemalloy fully supports free and open U.S. trade, we would 
have serious problems with a one-sided duty concession to China at the 
expense of South Africa. First, the impact on Chemalloy and its 
employees would be dramatic. Even with the duty free treatment, 
producers in China have consistently undersold Chemalloy's manganese 
products over the past few years. Much of our business has been eroded 
because of low cost, government-subsidized manganese shipments from 
China. Our sales tonnage of our manganese end products has dropped over 
23% from 2003 to 2004 (from 6,615 net tons to 5,069 net tons, 
respectively), with sales of only 1,931 net tons in YTD 2005. Given 
this impact, we cannot support giving a benefit to Chinese producers 
that would in all likelihood continue to harm Chemalloy--a U.S. 
company. We do not believe that our Congress should either.
    Second, U.S.-China trade relations are currently strained because 
of a number of difficult issues--the huge trade deficit with China, 
China's undervalued currency, lack of adequate intellectual property 
protection, and a variety of alleged unfair trade practices. The 
President and the Congress are devoting a great deal of effort to 
enforcing WTO rules and U.S. trade laws to assure that China meets its 
trade obligations. Therefore, from a broader trade policy perspective, 
we do not believe it is fair for our Congress to reward China with this 
duty suspension at this time.
    By contrast, South Africa has been pursuing enhanced trade 
relations and resolution of trade issues with the United States both on 
its own behalf and on behalf of the Southern African Customs Union. The 
United States has committed itself under AGOA to encourage the 
development of disadvantaged communities in South Africa and other 
African countries. As mentioned above, Manganese Metal Company's 
financial viability is dependent on the GSP benefits it receives from 
AGOA, and Chemalloy depends on Manganese Metal Company for a reliable 
supply of high-quality manganese flake.
    Finally, it is our understanding that this legislation will result 
in revenue losses that far exceed the $500,000 revenue loss limits 
imposed by the Ways and Means Committee for miscellaneous tariff bills. 
In 2004, China exported approximately $13.5 million of manganese metal 
flake to the United States. If Congress were to suspend the current 14% 
duty, the revenue loss to the United States would be approximately $1.9 
million.
    In light of the above, H.R. 2954, duty suspension for imports of 
manganese metal flake, should be rejected and not included in a 
miscellaneous tariff bill because it is controversial, damages the 
environment, rewards China at the expense of both a U.S. company and 
South Africa, and results in large revenue losses.
    We hope this information is informative and helpful. If you have 
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
            Sincerely,
                                                         A.C. Demos
                                                          President

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

                                            Embassy of South Africa
                                               Washington, DC 20008
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Sub-Committee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw,

    We are writing to you today to express the serious concerns of the 
Government of South Africa regarding H.R. 2954, introduced on June 16, 
2005, legislation which would suspend the duty on imports of manganese 
metal flake. We hope that you will oppose its inclusion in any 
miscellaneous tariff bill as it would contradict the spirit and 
intentions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
    U.S. production of manganese metal flake ceased in 2001. The only 
producers of manganese metal flake are located in South Africa and the 
People's Republic of China. The current duty on imports of manganese 
metal flake is 14%. South Africa already receives duty-free status from 
the GSP provisions under the AGOA. Therefore, this legislation will 
negate a very valuable duty benefit currently enjoyed by South Africa 
under the AGOA.
    The United States has committed itself under AGOA to encourage the 
development of disadvantaged communities in South Africa and other 
African countries. Even with GSP benefits granted in 2003, the South 
African manganese metal flake industry continues to struggle. The 
current rate of unemployment in South Africa is 30% and the average per 
capita income is $2,500. Many South African industries and service 
providers (with approximately 1,200 employees) depend on the manganese 
metal flake industry. Granting duty suspension to manganese metal flake 
imports will reduce South African exports, cost South African jobs, and 
undermine U.S. efforts to assist South Africa in developing its 
economy. This would worsen the already dire unemployment situation in 
South Africa and would also disrupt supply to key U.S. industries that 
rely on South Africa as a consistent and safe supplier of manganese 
metal flake in their production operations.
    As you are aware, South Africa has very stringent regulations 
pertaining to business, trade and investment, and enjoys a favourable 
reputation on corporate governance. This has been an influential factor 
governing our cooperative overall relationship with the United States. 
Indeed, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), we 
are looking to further deepen and expand our economic and trade 
relationship beyond the AGOA through a Free Trade Agreement with the 
United States.
    We hope this information is informative and helpful. If you have 
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mudunwazi Baloyi.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Barbara Masekela
                                                         Ambassador

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                                 Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd.
                                            Nelspruit, South Africa
                                                    August 11, 2005
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Subcommittee on Trade:

    We are writing to you today to express the serious concerns of the 
Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd. (``MMC'') regarding H.R. 2954, 
introduced on June 16, 2005, legislation which would suspend the duty 
on imports of manganese metal flake. This legislation would almost 
wholly benefit imports of manganese metal flake from the People's 
Republic of China at the expense of imports from the Republic of South 
Africa, and we hope that you will oppose its inclusion in any 
miscellaneous tariff bill as both controversial and excessively 
expensive.
    MMC is a South African company headquartered in Nelspruit, South 
Africa. MMC is in the business of producing and selling manganese metal 
products, including manganese metal flake, which are marketed on a 
world-wide basis. MMC is also one of the remaining producers of 
manganese metal flake in the world and its financial viability depends 
on the benefits it receives from GSP under the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act (``AGOA''). U.S. production of manganese metal flake 
ceased in 2001. The only other producers of manganese metal flake are 
located in the People's Republic of China. The current duty on imports 
of manganese metal flake is 14%. South Africa already receives duty-
free status from the GSP provisions under the AGOA. Therefore, this 
legislation will provide a very valuable duty benefit that effectively 
benefits only one major exporter--the People's Republic of China.
    The uncontrolled production of manganese metal in China causes 
significant air, water, and ground pollution. The wilful addition of 
selenium into the Chinese production process and products also poses 
additional risks in the Chinese production environment and for 
downstream users of manganese metal flake in the United States. MMC 
uses a selenium free process in the production of its manganese metal--
as did previous producers of manganese metal in the United States.
    U.S.-China trade relations are currently strained because of a 
number of difficult issues--the huge trade deficit with China, China's 
undervalued currency, lack of adequate intellectual property 
protection, and a variety of alleged unfair trade practices. Congress 
is focused on writing trade legislation to deal with these issues, and 
to enhance enforcement of U.S. trade laws in response to these 
problems. Including the duty suspension for manganese metal flake 
imports from China in a miscellaneous tariff bill would reward China 
despite these substantial trade problems. By contrast, South Africa has 
been pursuing enhanced trade relations and resolution of trade issues 
with the United States both on its own behalf and on behalf of the 
Southern African Customs Union.
    The United States has committed itself under AGOA to encourage the 
development of disadvantaged communities in South Africa and other 
African countries. The current rate of unemployment in South Africa is 
30% and the average per capita income is $2,500. Many South African 
industries and service providers (with approximately 1,200 employees 
and full time contractors) depend on MMC for their business. Granting 
duty suspension to Chinese manganese metal flake imports will reduce 
MMC's exports, cost valuable South African jobs, and undermine U.S. 
efforts to assist South Africa in developing its economy. This would 
worsen the already dire unemployment situation in South Africa and 
would also disrupt supply to key U.S. industries that rely on MMC as a 
consistent and safe supplier of manganese metal flake in their 
production operations.
    Furthermore, this legislation will result in revenue losses that 
far exceed the $500,000 revenue loss limits imposed by the Ways and 
Means Committee for miscellaneous tariff bills. In 2004, China exported 
approximately $13.5 million of manganese metal flake to the United 
States. If Congress were to suspend the current 14% duty, the revenue 
loss to the United States would be approximately $1.9 million. Even a 
duty reduction to 7% would cost the United States approximately 
$950,000 in revenue.
    In light of the above, H.R. 2954, duty suspension for imports of 
manganese metal flake, should be rejected and not included in a 
miscellaneous tariff bill because it is controversial, results in large 
revenue losses, damages the environment, and rewards China at the 
expense of South Africa.
    We hope this information is informative and helpful. If you have 
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Saffy
                                                  Marketing Manager

                                 

                              Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
                                         Newfield, New Jersey 08344
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    In response to Advisory TR-3 (July 25, 2005), we submit the 
following comments on behalf of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation 
(Shieldalloy) regarding H.R. 2954, one of the bills identified in that 
advisory. Shieldalloy is a U.S. producer of manganese-aluminum 
compacted products, including briquettes and tablets, which are used 
extensively by the U.S. aluminum industry.\1\ As explained in these 
comments, Shieldalloy opposes the inclusion of H.R. 2954 in a 
miscellaneous trade package. However, Shieldalloy would support an 
amended version of this bill that ensured an equitable impact on both 
U.S. manufacturers of manganese-aluminum compacted products, i.e., one 
that temporarily suspended the general rate of duty on U.S. imports of 
both manganese flake and manganese powder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Shieldalloy produces manganese-aluminum compacted products at 
its plant located at 35 South West Boulevard, Newfield, NJ 08344, and 
has manufactured these articles in the United States since the early 
1980's. Manganese-aluminum compacted products are sold primarily to 
aluminum producers for use in the production of container sheet ingot 
for aluminum beverage cans. These compacted products are an additive 
employed to increase the ductility of the container sheet ingot. 
Enhanced ductility is necessary to deep draw the ingot for use in the 
production of beverage cans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Immediate Practical Effect of H.R. 2954 Would Be to Suspend the 
        Duty on Imports of Manganese Flake from China
    H.R. 2954 would have the effect of temporarily suspending (changing 
to ``free'') the general rate of duty applicable to U.S. imports of 
manganese metal flake containing at least 99.5 percent by weight of 
manganese (hereafter referred to as ``Mn flake''). Mn flake is provided 
for in subheading 8111.00.47 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS),\2\ and the general rate of duty applicable to 
this subheading is 14 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Mn flake is described in the HTSUS as ``Manganese and articles 
thereof, including waste and scrap: Other: Unwrought manganese: Flake 
containing at least 99.5 percent by weight manganese.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Official import statistics demonstrate that in 2004, imports from 
China and South Africa combined represented 98.5 percent by weight of 
total U.S. imports of Mn flake.\3\ Imports of Mn flake from China (51.7 
percent of total imports) are subject to the 14 percent general rate of 
duty. However, imports of Mn flake from South Africa (46.7 percent of 
total imports) enter the United States free of duty under the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Therefore, the immediate practical 
effect of H.R. 2954 would be to suspend the duty applicable to imports 
of Mn flake from China. However, this duty suspension can also be 
viewed as solidifying the duty-free treatment that Mn flake from South 
Africa currently receives under the AGOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. imports for consumption of Mn flake (subheading 
8111.00.47, HTSUS) in 2004 totaled 16,779,612 kg (8,679,422 kg from 
China, 7,840,190 from South Africa, and 260,000 kg from the 
Netherlands). See http://dataweb.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Suspending the Duty on Mn Flake Would Provide an Unfair Competitive 
        Advantage to One of the Two U.S. Companies that Manufacture 
        Manganese-Aluminum Compacted Products
    The primary input for the manganese-aluminum compacted products 
manufactured by Shieldalloy is manganese powder (``Mn powder''), which 
is Mn flake ground into powder form. Shieldalloy must use imported Mn 
powder to produce its manganese-aluminum compacted products because 
competitive conditions prevent it from securing a supply of this input 
from a domestic source. In 2004, 100 percent of U.S. imports of Mn 
powder (subheading 8111.00.4910, HTSUS) \4\ were subject to the 14 
percent general rate of duty.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Mn powder is described in the HTSUS as ``Manganese and articles 
thereof, including waste and scrap: Other: Unwrought manganese: Other: 
Powder containing at least 99.5 percent by weight manganese.''
    \5\ In 2004, U.S. imports for consumption of Mn powder (subheading 
8111.00.4910, HTSUS) were reported from China (5,485,697 kg), South 
Africa (4,258,298 kg), and Germany (54,756 kg). See http://
dataweb.usitc.gov. Unlike Mn flake, U.S. imports of Mn powder from 
South Africa do not receive duty-free treatment under the AGOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from Shieldalloy, the only other manufacturer of manganese-
aluminum compacted products in the United States is Eramet Marietta, 
Inc. (``Eramet''). Eramet is by far the larger of the two U.S. 
manufacturers of these products. Eramet is able to use imported Mn 
flake as its primary production input because it has the capability to 
grind the imported flake into manganese powder, which it then uses to 
manufacture manganese-aluminum compacted products. Shieldalloy cannot 
use Mn flake as an input because it lacks the additional specialized 
production facilities required to grind Mn flake into Mn powder.
    If H.R. 2954 is included in a miscellaneous trade package and the 
general rate of duty on Mn flake is suspended, Eramet would gain duty-
free access to imports of its major input, Mn flake, from China, the 
largest U.S. supplier in 2004. As explained above, Mn flake from South 
Africa, the other primary supplier, already enters the United States 
duty-free. On the other hand, the imported Mn powder that Shieldalloy 
relies upon to manufacture manganese-aluminum compacted products would 
remain subject to a 14 percent duty. Thus, the duty suspension proposed 
by H.R. 2954 would provide a distinct and substantial cost advantage to 
Eramet over Shieldalloy.
    This price disadvantage could be so significant as to force 
Shieldalloy to cease its U.S. production of manganese-aluminum tablets 
and briquettes. This, in turn, would result in the loss of a 
substantial number of U.S. jobs. Moreover, if Shieldalloy ceases 
production of manganese-aluminum compacted products, purchasers in the 
aluminum industry would likely face higher prices from Eramet. Because 
of the inequitable and damaging result that this bill would generate, 
Shieldalloy urges the Ways and Means Committee not to include H.R. 2954 
in a miscellaneous trade package.
III. Shieldalloy Would Support a Bill That Suspended the General Rate 
        of Duty on Both Mn Flake and Mn Powder
    As Shieldalloy has explained, a bill that temporarily suspended the 
duty applicable to Mn flake would benefit only one of the two U.S. 
producers of manganese-aluminum compacted products, and would leave 
Shieldalloy at a significant competitive disadvantage. For this reason, 
Shieldalloy opposes H.R. 2954.
    On the other hand, Shieldalloy would support a bill that 
temporarily suspended the 14 percent general rate of duty on Mn flake 
and also temporarily suspended the 14 percent general rate of duty on 
Mn powder containing at least 99.5 percent manganese by weight 
(subheading 8111.00.4910, HTSUS). Such a bill would benefit both U.S. 
producers of manganese-aluminum compacted products, as well as a wide 
range of U.S. consumers.
    Therefore, if H.R. 2954 were amended so that it suspended the duty 
applicable to U.S. imports of both Mn flake and Mn powder, Shieldalloy 
would support its inclusion in a miscellaneous trade package. However, 
we reiterate that Shieldalloy opposes H.R. 2954 as introduced.
                                                   Cheryl Ellsworth
                                                John B. Totaro, Jr.
                   Counsel to Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2996. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2996 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2996. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2996 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman.]

                                   Pan American Grain Manufacturing
                                        Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., regarding the 
liquidation or reliquidation of a certain drawback claim as set forth 
in HR 2997. We support the inclusion of this bill into this Congress' 
Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    The need for this reliquidation bill is a result of the U.S. Custom 
Service not following the standard for determining commercial 
interchangeability as established by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in determining whether or not to grant drawbacks for 
the claims identified in the above referenced bill. Pan American Grain 
Manufacturing Co., Inc. strongly supports this bill, as it will correct 
the misapplication by U.S. Customs of the commercial interchangeability 
standard with respect to exports of rice from the U.S.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                 Milton R. Gonzalez
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                                  Agramericas, Inc.
                                    Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57186
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Agramericas, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2997. We support the 
inclusion of both of these bills into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    The need for these reliquidation bills is a result of the U.S. 
Custom Service not following the standard for determining commercial 
interchangeability as established by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in determining whether or not to grant drawbacks for 
the claims identified in the above referenced bills. Agramericas, Inc., 
strongly supports these bills as it will correct the misapplication by 
U.S. Customs of the commercial interchangeability standard with respect 
to exports of rice from the U.S.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                     Kevin R. Deuel
                                                          President

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2997. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2997 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    The need for liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claim set 
forth in the above referenced bill is due to U.S. Customs liquidating 
the claims under the incorrect product classification. A request was 
made by our company to Customs to change the classification of the 
imported goods as needed to facilitate drawbacks, and the change in the 
products classification was not timely made by Customs. As a result, 
Customs liquidated the imported products under the incorrect 
classification number, resulting in a denial of drawbacks since the 
classification number of the imported products and those for the 
exported products did not match. When the matter was addressed with 
Customs, Customs took the position that the liquidation is final, even 
if incorrect, and as a result the products classification has been 
determined. This legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for 
proper liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth 
therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2997. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2997 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    The need for liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claim set 
forth in the above referenced bill is due to U.S. Customs liquidating 
the claims under the incorrect product classification. A request was 
made by our client to Customs to change the classification of the 
imported goods as needed to facilitate drawbacks, and the change in the 
products classification was not timely made by Customs. As a result, 
Customs liquidated the imported products under the incorrect 
classification number, resulting in a denial of drawbacks since the 
classification number of the imported products and those for the 
exported products did not match. When the matter was addressed with 
Customs, Customs took the position that the liquidation is final, even 
if incorrect, and as a result the products classification has been 
determined. This legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for 
proper liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth 
therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 
                                          Lyondell Chemical Company
                                               Houston, Texas 77010
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Equistar Chemicals, LP, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2997. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2997 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    The need for liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claim set 
forth in the above referenced bill is due to U.S. Customs liquidating 
the claims under the incorrect product classification. A request was 
made by our company to Customs to change the classification of the 
imported goods as needed to facilitate drawbacks, and the change in the 
products classification was not timely made by Customs. As a result, 
Customs liquidated the imported products under the incorrect 
classification number, resulting in a denial of drawbacks since the 
classification number of the imported products and those for the 
exported products did not match. When the matter was addressed with 
Customs, Customs took the position that the liquidation is final, even 
if incorrect, and as a result the products classification has been 
determined. This legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for 
proper liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth 
therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                    Norman Phillips
                                              Senior Vice President

                                 

                                                 The Garlic Company
                                      Bakersfield, California 93314
                                                    August 29, 2005
    To: Ways and Means Committee Submittal
    We are the owners of The Garlic Company. The Garlic Company packs 
and ships both fresh and peeled garlic. We employ approximately 125 
full time employees and 325 employees seasonally.
    We are very strongly opposed to H.R. 1121 Miscellaneous Tariff Bill 
(MTB) calling for the repeal of the CDSOA. We are also very strongly 
opposed to H.R. 2473(in the MTB), which alters the calculations of the 
``all others'' rate AD/CVD cases. This would significantly reduce the 
amount of duties collected and distributed under CDSOA.
    The distributions made to The Garlic Company under the CDSOA have 
helped in our survival against the massive amounts of imports from 
China. However these distributions have not been the ``windfall'' that 
one reads in many publications and hears from some politicians. The 
distributions contribute but do not fully compensate for damage done to 
our industry by unscrupulous Chinese importers. Distributions made to 
The Garlic Company have enabled us to make some improvements to our 
processing systems, which have contributed to lowering our cost. It has 
also allowed us to continue to employ our attorney group, which has 
been instrumental in defending ourselves against dishonest Chinese 
importers of fresh and peeled garlic. Through this group we have been 
able to give both Customs and the Department of Commerce valuable 
information. This information has led to a ``crack down'' on the 
never--ending scams and schemes of the unscrupulous Chinese garlic 
importers. This unscrupulous activity also harms the legitimate Chinese 
importer. In the past ten years, our group, has supplied information to 
either the Department of Commerce or Customs that has led to action 
against the following schemes:
    1) False declaration of the country of origin concerning Chinese 
garlic. This results in no duties paid or collected on Chinese garlic. 
This Chinese garlic is sold at

very low prices thus driving down the price of domestic garlic and 
legitimate Chinese garlic.
    2) Under declaring the value of imported Chinese garlic to avoid 
paying higher duties. In some cases this value was placed at a one-cent 
or a fraction of a cent. This results in incorrect and small amounts of 
duties being collected. This garlic is sold at far below market prices, 
which lowers the market for domestic and legitimately imported Chinese 
garlic.
    3) Under declaring the amounts shipped within a container. This 
results in no duty being paid on the amounts undeclared within the 
container which enables the importer to sell at a lower than market 
price. This damages the market for the domestic shipper and the 
legitimate Chinese shipper.
    4) Smuggling Chinese garlic from Canada into the United States. 
This results in no duties being collected and garlic that sells below 
the market price, which damages both the domestic shipper and 
legitimate importer.
    5) Falsification of import documents. Chinese importers with high 
duty rates use the import information of Chinese importers with low or 
no duty rates. This many times occurs without the knowledge of the 
Chinese importer with the lower duty rates. This results in little or 
no duty being collected and damages the market for both the domestic 
shipper and legitimate Chinese importer.
    6) Falsely declaring the contents of a container. An importer will 
load a container with garlic and declare it to be ginger or some other 
non-duty commodity. This results in no duties paid and harms the market 
for both the domestic shipper and legitimate Chinese importer.
    These schemes and shams are something that a domestic garlic 
producer has to live with on a daily basis. Through our group's efforts 
and with the help of some legitimate Chinese importers we are able to 
gather information, which has helped both the Department of Commerce 
and Customs, curtail some of this activity. We understand these 
government agencies are understaffed and overworked so any creditable 
information that we can supply is helpful and saves tax dollars for all 
Americans. Domestic garlic producers can compete with legitimate 
Chinese garlic importers; we cannot compete against the unscrupulous 
importers of Chinese garlic. The CDSOA funds we receive partially help 
to uncover and stop the scams and schemes of the unscrupulous Chinese 
importers. This is essential to our survival.
     No country can survive as a service oriented country. We need to 
support manufacturing and agriculture jobs in this Country for the 
long-term benefit of all our citizens. We expect our politicians to do 
their part by opposing the repeal of the CDSOA.
    We also expect our politicians to support the United States 
sovereign right to distribute taxes as determined by Congress by 
fighting efforts to undermine the CDSOA in the World Trade 
Organization. We understand that Congress has called for our trade 
negotiators in the ongoing Dpha round to push for revision of the WTO 
agreements. We particularly agree that CDSOA and similar programs 
relating to individual countries' use of the AD/CVD duties they collect 
will be expressly accepted as WTO consistent. We feel this is the 
method to resolve the WTO dispute that is the basis for calls to repeal 
the Byrd Amendment. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing this very 
important issue.
            With best regards,
                                                           Joe Lane
                                                        John Layous

                                 

                                                  Charter Brokerage
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2998. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2998 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
                                        San Ramon, California 94583
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Chevron USA, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2998. We support the 
inclusion of HR 2998 into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Ken Kleier

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2998. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2998 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2999. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2999 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
                                        San Ramon, California 94583
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Chevron USA, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2999. We support the 
inclusion of HR 2999 into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Ken Kleier

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 2999. We 
support the inclusion of HR 2999 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                                   BP America, Inc.
                                        Warrenville, Illinois 60555
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of BP Products North America, Inc., regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3001. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3001 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                Timothy W. Van Oost
                                                Director of Customs

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3001. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3001 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                  Chevron USA, Inc.
                                        San Ramon, California 94583
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Chevron USA, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3001. We support the 
inclusion of HR 3001 into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kleier

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3001. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3001 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3002. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3002 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3002. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3002 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                    [By permission of the Chairman:]

                         Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc.
                                        Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., Inc., regarding the 
liquidation or reliquidation of a certain drawback claim as set forth 
in HR 3002. We support the inclusion of this bill into this Congress' 
Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    The need for this reliquidation bill is a result of the U.S. Custom 
Service not following the standard for determining commercial 
interchangeability as established by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in determining whether or not to grant drawbacks for 
the claims identified in the above referenced bill. Pan American Grain 
Manufacturing Co., Inc. strongly supports this bill, as it will correct 
the misapplication by U.S. Customs of the commercial interchangeability 
standard with respect to exports of rice from the U.S.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                 Milton R. Gonzalez
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                                The Connell Company
                                 Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005, on behalf of Connell Rice & 
Sugar Co., a Division of The Connell Company (Connell). We support the 
inclusion of HR 3002, a bill regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims, into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade 
Package.
    This reliquidation bill is needed as a result of the U.S. Custom 
Service not following the standard for determining commercial 
interchangeability as established by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in determining whether or not to grant drawbacks for 
the claims identified in the above-referenced bill. Connell strongly 
supports this bill as it will correct the misapplication by U.S. 
Customs of the commercial interchangeability standard with respect to 
exports of rice from the U.S.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned at the above address or phone 
number. We thank the Committee for its consideration of these comments.
                                                     Grover Connell
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
    H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, chain 
adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal diameter, 
air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, safety pads, 
chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all the foregoing 
for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                                    Deere & Company
                                             Moline, Illinois 61265
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Deere & Company (``Deere'') appreciates this opportunity to comment 
on H.R. 3066, a bill to provide separate tariff categories for certain 
tractor body parts suitable for agricultural use. Deere is a worldwide 
leader in the manufacture, distribution and financing of a full line of 
agricultural equipment, as well as construction and forestry equipment, 
commercial and consumer equipment, and other technological products and 
services. Deere believes the tariff changes provided in H.R. 3066 are 
necessary and strongly supports the bill's enactment.
    H.R. 3066 would complete the effort made by the Congress through 
the 2004 Miscellaneous Tariff Classification legislation to provide for 
the duty-free treatment of certain parts of agricultural tractors that 
is currently provided for virtually all other tractor parts. This is an 
anomaly that denies such duty free treatment to all tractor body parts, 
which has had an adverse effect on Deere's U.S. operations. Deere 
supports the proposed changes in H.R. 3066 to rectify the ongoing 
inconsistency.
    The effect of H.R. 3066 would be to establish a new heading under 
``Parts and Accessories of the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 
8705'' that distinguishes certain parts of bodies used for agricultural 
purposes from those used for motor vehicles, and provides for their 
duty-free treatment.
    The Harmonized Tariff schedule today includes headings for 
agricultural tractors (8701.90.10), tractor bodies (8707.90.10), 
chassis (8706.00.30), and numerous other components (brakes, wheels, 
struts, etc.) that are ``suitable for agricultural use'' (8708). All 
these items have a duty-free tariff. In 2004, the Congress added a 
subheading for body stampings, consistent with the longstanding 
principle under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Code that all agricultural 
equipment and parts should receive duty-free treatment.
    However, absent the changes proposed in H.R. 3066, certain tractor 
body parts not explicitly provided for by the schedule will continue to 
be misclassified as parts of motor vehicles and subject to duties of 
2.5 percent. The illogical result of this continued misclassification 
is that today, imported tractors, assembled tractor bodies, unspecified 
tractor parts and some tractor body parts may enter the U.S. duty-free, 
yet other tractor body parts are subject to the 2.5 percent duty that 
applies to body parts of motor vehicles.
    Deere manufactures approximately 85 different models of 
agricultural tractors in factories in the U.S. and around the world, 
many with interchangeable parts. In addition, Deere imports a variety 
of parts and accessories for exclusive use on U.S.-made John Deere 
tractors. At present, the volume of imported tractor body parts is 
relatively low and their use is primarily as service and repair parts 
by John Deere dealers across the U.S. However, Deere anticipates that 
imports of these body parts will increase as it expands the U.S. 
production of certain John Deere tractor models, and the corresponding 
demand for imported body parts for assembly in its U.S. plants rises 
also. The remaining 2.5 percent duty on tractor body parts impacts not 
only Deere, but independent John Deere dealers across the U.S. who rely 
on imported parts to service equipment, and their U.S. farmer 
customers.
    Deere strongly supports the timely enactment of H.R. 3066 to amend 
the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule to provide a new duty-free 
classification for tractor body parts, so that these items are treated 
the same way as other tractor parts, assembled tractor bodies and 
imports of tractors suitable for agricultural use. Should you have any 
questions about Deere's views, please contact John Rauber, (202) 223-
4817, in Deere's Public Affairs Worldwide office.
                                                  Thomas K. Jarrett
                                                     Vice President
                                                     Tax Department

                                 

                                                    Deere & Company
                                             Moline, Illinois 61265
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways & Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Deere & Company (``Deere'') appreciates this opportunity to comment 
on H.R. 3067, a bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain ``log 
forwarders'' consistent with other agricultural use log handling 
equipment. Deere believes this bill is necessary and appropriate, and 
strongly supports its enactment.
    Deere is a worldwide leader in the manufacture, distribution and 
financing of a full line of agricultural equipment, as well as 
construction and forestry equipment, commercial and consumer equipment, 
and other technological products and services. Deere's forestry 
equipment subsidiary, Timberjack, designs and manufactures log 
forwarders at its factory in Finland. A log forwarder is an integral 
piece of equipment used in the harvesting of timber, primarily to load 
and haul logs for a short distance from the timberline down to the 
staging area. Over the past 3 years Deere imported approximately 25 log 
forwarders per year (28 in 2001) into the U.S. for use by loggers in 
timber harvesting activities in this country.
    Each forwarder consists of a front and rear section. The front 
section consists of a tractor with an engine, steerable wheels and an 
ergonomically designed driver's cab. The rear section has a wood gate, 
and a bunk with steel frames fitted to the front section by two pins. 
In addition the aft section has a wood handling knuckle boom controlled 
from the driver's cab in the forward section. The front and rear 
sections are connected by means of an articulation joint for steering 
the tractor. The forward section supplies power to the rear drive 
wheels by means of an articulated drive shaft and also supplies 
hydraulic power to the rear section.
    There is no specific heading currently in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States covering log forwarders. The Finnish 
Customs Bureau has ruled that
    Timberjack forwarders are within the scope of Section 8701 
(``Tractors'') and its subheadings. Deere recently requested a 
Classification Ruling from the New York Customs Service office that the 
Timberjack forwarders were within Section
    8701.90 ``Tractors suitable for agricultural use . . .'', to 
confirm their duty-free treatment in the U.S. consistent with all other 
equipment suitable for agricultural use. The New York Customs Office, 
however, issued a Classification Ruling that the Timberjack forwarders 
are classified as 8704.23.0000--``Motor vehicles for the transport of 
goods'' dutiable at a 25 percent rate.
    This ruling has created the anomaly of applying import duties to 
log forwarders to the exclusion of other agricultural equipment 
imported into the United States. As a practical matter, Deere and other 
importers have the option of dismantling the forwarder (i.e. separating 
the front and rear sections) and bringing it into the U.S. as component 
parts. In doing so, Customs treats them as ``Parts and accessories of 
motor vehicles'' dutiable at 2.5 percent. (Thus, the revenue impact of 
any tariff change should be measured using the 2.5 percent duty rather 
than the 25 percent duty.) Nonetheless, this practice perpetuates the 
duty applied to these imports and adds significant expense involved in 
dismantling the forwarder into two pieces for shipment to the U.S., and 
then reassembling the unit.
    Deere strongly supports enactment of H.R. 3067 in order to properly 
apply the duty free treatment to log forwarders intended for all 
agricultural equipment. While Deere would prefer that log forwarders be 
treated under the subheading dealing with ``Tractors suitable for 
agricultural use,'' Deere believes that the creation of a new 
subheading under ``Motor vehicles for the transport of goods'' 
appropriately addresses Customs' concern regarding the proper and 
consistent definition of ``Tractor'' as being inclusive of the 
forwarder.
    H.R. 3067 is an effective way for Congress to establish a new duty-
free classification for log forwarders and parts of log forwarders. 
H.R. 3067 will result in the tariff treatment of log forwarders 
imported into the United States being consistent with treatment of 
other log handling equipment, and consistent with the tariff treatment 
of log forwarders in other parts of the world.
    For the above reasons, Deere urges the timely enactment of H.R. 
3067. Should you have any questions about Deere's views, please contact 
John Rauber, (202) 223-4817 in Deere's Public Affairs Worldwide office.
                                                  Thomas K. Jarrett
                                                     Vice President
                                                     Tax Department

                                 

                                                   Ponsse N.A. Inc.
                                       Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Pursuant to the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade 
Advisory No. TR-3 dated July 25, 2005, the following comments are 
respectfully submitted by Ponsse N.A. Inc. in support of H.R. 3067, a 
bill to grant permanent duty free status to crane equipped log 
forwarders.
    Ponsse N.A. Inc. (``Ponsse'') is an importer and re-seller of 
forest machines including the log forwarders of the type that are the 
subject of H.R. 3067. Ponsse also provides after-sales warranty and 
maintenance service for the machines it sells to customers throughout 
the United States.
    Ponsse supports H.R. 3067 because the bill corrects a 
classification anomaly in the tariff schedule which imposes a 
prohibitive tariff rate on log forwarders while all other articles of a 
type used for agricultural or forestry purposes historically are 
imported duty free.
DESCRIPTION OF LOG FORWARDERS
    The log forwarders in question are machines used in the forestry 
industry to facilitate the movement of cut and de-limbed logs from the 
cutting site in the forest to the side of a road where they can be 
loaded onto a conventional truck for transportation to a mill for 
further processing.
    A log forwarder combines the features of a mobile crane with those 
of an agricultural tractor and a trailer. However, a log forwarder is 
specially designed to maneuver in rough forest terrain and it has 
limited range, its usefulness being confined to negotiating the short 
distance between the cutting site and the road where the logs will be 
loaded for transportation to a mill. A log forwarder is not suitable 
for over-the-road use or for the general transportation of goods. The 
engines in log forwarders imported by Ponsse are only approved by the 
EPA for off-road use.
    Log forwarders are a relatively new article of commerce that 
represent a recent advancement in both technology and forest 
management, utilizing the cut-to-length method of harvesting. Most 
timber is harvested in the United States using the traditional method 
which involves use of separate machines to (a) cut down a tree, (b) de-
limb it, (c) drag it to an area where it can be further cut, (d) cut it 
to specified size and then (e) load the timber onto an over-the-road 
truck for transport. The log forwarder works in tandem with a mobile 
tree harvester and together they perform all of the foregoing functions 
using two machines instead of up to five. Because the cut-to-length 
method reduces the number of machines in the forest, because the 
machines themselves employ oversize rubber tires (instead of tracks) 
and because the tree cuttings are left on the forest floor at the 
cutting site, this method is believed to be more environmentally 
friendly than the traditional method.
    In appearance, log forwarders consist of two sections, joined 
together by a flexible pivot joint. The front section resembles an 
agricultural tractor and contains the engine, an enclosed cab for the 
operator, and the hydraulics or other systems to power the crane. The 
rear section resembles an open trailer with bogie axles to allow for 
movement along uneven terrain, to which a heavy crane has been 
permanently mounted. In the models imported by Ponsse, a disengageable 
drive shaft extends back from the engine in the tractor to provide 
motive force to the rear axle of the trailer.
HISTORICAL DUTY FREE TARIFF TREATMENT
    The purpose of the technical correction to the tariff schedule 
proposed in H.R. 3067 is to restore the duty free status of all 
agricultural implements that has been enacted historically by Congress.
    Timber harvesting and logging have long been considered bona fide 
agricultural operations for purposes of United States tariff policy. 
See, United States v. Norman G. Jensen, Inc., 64 CCPA 51 (C.A.D. 1183), 
550 F.2d 662 (1977); United States v. Border Brokerage Co., Inc., 1 
Fed. Cir. (T) 58, 706 F.2d 1579 (1983).
    At least as far back as the Tariff Act of 1922, the tariff 
contained a provision that granted duty free status to specified 
agricultural articles ``and all other agricultural implements of any 
kind or description not specifically provided for'' unless expressly 
listed for duty payment. (Tariff Act of 1922, Para. 1504) This 
provision was effectively carried forward in Schedule 16 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as Paragraph 1604. The general duty free status of 
agricultural goods was continued when the TSUS was implemented in 1962 
under TSUS 666.00. This duty free treatment was specifically recognized 
in The Tariff Classification Study where it was stated: ``From the 
legislative history of paragraph 1604, `Court Decisions,' Congress 
intended to aid those engaged in agriculture by permitting the 
importation of agricultural implements free of duty.'' Tariff 
Classification Study, Explanatory and Background Materials, Schedule 6, 
p. 647 (United States Tariff Commission 1960).
    When the HTSUS was implemented in 1989, the old Section 666.00 of 
the TSUS was broken up so that the various statistical subheadings of 
the TSUS provision were given separate 6 digit subheadings under the 
HTSUS. All of the many new subheadings in the new structure of the HTS 
provided duty free status for agricultural articles. See ``Conversion 
of the Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated into the 
Nomenclature Structure of the Harmonized System,'' Annex II, p. 971 
(USITC Publ. 1400, June 1983).
CURRENT ANOMALOUS TARIFF TREATMENT
    Before the development of log forwarders, the principal means for 
the removal of harvested timber was a log skidder that dragged logs 
along the forest floor by use of a conveyor type cable. Like other 
forestry machinery, log skidders have duty free status under HTSUS 
8701.90.10.01 which specifically describes log skidders.
    There is no provision in the tariff that specifically describes log 
forwarders. For some time log forwarders achieved duty free status when 
they were classified as tractors and trailers which are duty free 
agricultural implements. However, in a review of classification of log 
forwarders, the government reversed the duty free tractor/trailer 
classification because the forwarder consists of a tractor and a 
trailer that are both powered by an engine power drive.
    Consequently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (formerly U.S. 
Customs Service) now classifies log forwarders, in the absence of any 
specific description, under Heading 8704 of the HTSUS which is a 
general default provision within Chapter 87 of the HTSUS that provides 
for ``motor vehicles for the transport of goods.'' This heading carries 
an ad valorem duty rate of 25%. This is the same provision which 
encompasses one piece diesel trucks, which are the real target of the 
prohibitive 25% duty rate. In short, log forwarders are subject to an 
extraordinarily high duty purely by the accident of the general laws of 
classification.
    H.R. 3067 leaves log forwarders within HTS Heading 8704 but breaks 
out forwarders as enumerated articles and assigns them the ``free'' 
rate appropriate to agricultural goods. There is no evidence that 
Congress intended for this new article of commerce to have a 
prohibitive duty rate assigned to it contrary to decades of duty free 
treatment allowed for other articles dedicated to agricultural use. 
Indeed, there is persuasive evidence that the existing classification 
runs sharply against the current of United States tariff policy with 
respect to articles used for agricultural and forestry purposes. Most 
articles imported for agricultural purposes may be imported duty free. 
For example, agricultural tractors may be imported duty free under 
Heading 8701 of the HTSUS. The forest harvesters used with the log 
forwarders may be imported duty free under Heading 8436 of the HTSUS. 
Other forest machines may be imported duty free under Heading 8432 of 
the HTSUS. The classification of log forwarders within Heading 8704, if 
technically correct under the current tariff treatment, is nonetheless 
an anomaly, particularly with regard to the prohibitive tariff rate 
currently applicable.
REVENUE NEUTRALITY
    There will be no direct loss of revenue of the United States as a 
result the specific duty free classification for log forwarders 
provided for in H.R. 3067. Although the inclusion of log forwarders in 
the same provisions as diesel trucks precludes any product specific 
data on log forwarder imports, it is a simple fact that the 25% ad 
valorem duty makes any import of log forwarders commercially 
unfeasible. These forest machines typically sell for prices in the low 
six figures, making them wholly uncompetitive at the 25% increase in 
their landed cost. Consequently, it is a reasonable conclusion, and we 
believe an accurate one, that no imports of assembled log forwarder are 
currently occurring, and therefore, no duty is being realized from the 
current classification of log forwarders under HTSUS 8704.
    Available data on imports from those countries in which log 
forwarders are manufactured for the U.S. market, i.e. Finland, Sweden 
and Canada, confirms the conclusion that no dutiable imports of log 
forwarders occurred and therefore H.R. 3067 is revenue neutral. (See 
Attachment A infra.) All imports under the various tariff numbers that 
include log forwarders in 2003-2004 were from Canada, which presumably 
were duty free under NAFTA. However, Ponsse has no way of determining 
how much of this value even relates to the importation of any log 
forwarders since the relevant tariff numbers also include ordinary 
diesel trucks, certainly a much more common article than a log 
forwarder.
    In sum, United States trade statistics indicate that, even though 
log forwarders are classified in the same provisions as diesel trucks, 
there have nevertheless been no significant dutiable imports from these 
countries under any of the subheadings in which a log forwarder would 
be classified. This is undoubtedly due to the prohibitive rate 
applicable to articles classified within Heading 8704, HTSUS.
    Although no importer is paying 25% duty on log forwarder imports, 
log forwarders are currently being imported in ``parts'' and assembled 
in the United States for sale. These imports are occurring through the 
lawful practice of ``tariff engineering.'' If the front (tractor) 
section and rear section (trailer with mounted crane) are imported 
separately, Customs classifies each section as a ``part'' of a motor 
vehicle within Heading 8708, HTSUS. The applicable sub-heading for 
``parts'' has a 2.5% ad valorem duty rate. However, the importer must 
pay separate shipping, forwarding, customs brokerage, and insurance 
fees for each section and must then assemble the separate sections 
before it can deliver the log forwarder to its customer. This process 
is inefficient, results in delay in delivery to the customer, and 
increases the importer's costs. Since many purchasers of log forwarders 
are independent owner/operators who lease their machines to logging 
companies, the inherent inefficiency in the import process and the 
increased costs to the importer are passed along to downstream 
participants in the logging industry, including logging companies, 
lumber and paper mills, and ultimately, to users of paper and wood 
products.
    In addition to parts of log forwarders and other vehicles for the 
transport of goods, the applicable parts provision in Heading 8708 
HTSUS pulls in parts from Headings 8701 through 8705, which include 
tractor parts, motor vehicle parts, truck parts and parts for certain 
special purpose vehicles. Consequently, it is impossible to estimate 
the revenue impact from H.R. 3067 from the current practice of 
importing log forwarders in sections and paying 2.5% ad valorem under 
Heading 8708.
RETROACTIVITY
    There will be no retroactive effect to this legislation. It will 
apply to importations of log forwarders on or after the effective date 
of the comprehensive legislation as specified therein.
NON-CONTROVERSIAL
    H.R. 3067 is non-controversial in that it is merely restoring the 
duty free status for this category of product that Congress has 
bestowed historically. Because the current classification of log 
forwarders in a provision that also includes diesel trucks has occurred 
merely by default of general classification law, it is clear that 
Congress never intended to render tariff protection to any domestic 
industry that produces log forwarders. Any suggestion of such 
protection is rebutted by the fact no other similar agricultural or 
forestry implement falls in a dutiable category. As a relatively new 
article of commerce, log forwarders are defaulted into classification 
in Heading 8704, HTSUS only because there is no specific provision in 
the tariff for such specialized articles. H.R. 3067 merely provides a 
technical correction to the existing tariff to classify log forwarders 
under a specific description, at a duty rate consistent with historical 
Congressional treatment, and outside of the high duty rate 
classification intended to protect industries other than manufacturers 
of agricultural or forestry machinery.
EASE OF ADMINISTRATION
    Log forwarders described in H.R. 3067 are easily identifiable 
articles of commerce and will not present the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection with any special problems or difficulties in classification.
CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, Ponsse N.A. Inc. respectfully submits 
that H.R. 3067 should be included in the miscellaneous trade bill for 
technical correction to the tariff schedule. If the Committee would 
like additional information on these points, the following individuals 
may be contacted:
                                                        Ruth Nelson
                                          Import Compliance Manager
ATTACHMENT A
Import Value Data
    Log forwarders are classified, according to weight in metric tons, 
in 8704.22.50 HTSUSA. The applicable subheading classifications for 
Ponsse's forwarders are 8704.22.5040, 8704.22.5060 and 8704.22.5080. 
These classifications are all eligible for NAFTA duty preferences. 
Presumably imports from Canada qualify for NAFTA preferences and no 
duty is paid on these. Since forwarders are classified in the same 
heading that applies to diesel trucks, it is not possible to 
distinguish between forwarders and trucks classified within the same 
subheading. However, U.S. import trade statistics indicate that the 
following values and quantities were imported under the relevant tariff 
subheadings for 2003 and 2004:

 
                                8704.22.5040-exceeding 9 metric tons but
                                       not exceeding 12 metric tons
 
                                2003           2004
 
                                CANADA         $12,373,598.  $12,578,801
                                                00            .00
                                FINLAND        $0.00         $0.00
                                SWEDEN         $0.00         $0.00
 
                                  8704.22.5060-exceeding 12 metric tons
                                     but not exceeding 15 metric tons
 
                                2003           2004
 
                                CANADA         $25,556,529.  $24,013,151
                                                00            .00
                                FINLAND        $0.00         $0.00
                                SWEDEN         $0.00         $0.00
 
                                  8704.22.5080-exceeding 15 metric tons
                                     but not exceeding 20 metric tons
 
                                2003           2004
 
                                CANADA         $11,330,110.  $9,089,254.
                                                00            00
                                FINLAND        $0.00         $0.00
                                SWEDEN         $0.00         $0.00
 
  (Source: USA Trade Online Import Statistics)


                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben
Cardin Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
3Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                               Global Home Products
                                            Westerville, Ohio 43082
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments regarding the 
miscellaneous duty suspension bills recently introduced in the 
Congress. My comments will focus on H.R. 3116, a bill ``To suspend 
temporarily the duty on certain glass articles.'' This bill seeks to 
suspend the duty on tariff subheading 7013.99.90, Glass articles valued 
over $5 each, whether or not put up in sets, put up for mail order 
retail sale, and each weighing not over 4 kg together with their retail 
packaging, until December 31, 2008. This bill would therefore allow 
glassware entered under this subheading free of duty for the next three 
years. Global Home Products strongly objects to this tariff suspension 
and believes it will result in revenue loss and attract controversy.
I. About Us--Global Home Products and Anchor Glass
    Global Home Products (GHP) is a leading designer, marketer and 
manufacturer of a diverse portfolio of quality consumer products across 
all price categories for retail, hospitality and original equipment 
manufacturer (OEM) customers. GHP sells its home products through its 
businesses Anchor Hocking', the Burnes Group and WearEver.
    One of our premier companies is Anchor Hocking. Anchor is a leading 
marketer and manufacturer of a comprehensive line of glass 
beverageware, candle containers, servingware, ovenware, storageware, 
lighting components and other glass products. Anchor sells glassware 
and tableware under the brand names Anchor Hocking', Fire-
King', Toscany', Phoenix GlassTM, and Jade-
iteTM. We are the second largest supplier of consumer 
glassware in the United States. We manufacture substantially all of our 
glassware products at our manufacturing facilities in Ohio and 
Pennsylvania and employ approximately 1600 workers, almost 1450 of whom 
are unionized through the United Steelworkers of America.
    Celebrating its 100th anniversary, Anchor Hocking has a rich 
American history. Purchased in 1905 for $25,000, the Hocking Glass 
Company began operations near the Hocking River in Lancaster, Ohio. It 
survived the depression through the use of the revolutionary automatic 
glass press. Through various acquisitions, the company grew both in 
size and product lines--manufacturing glass, plastic containers, 
lighting, earthenware, china and commemorative plates. After the 
purchase of the company in 1987 by Newell Corporation, the company was 
reinvigorated with capital and some of the less profitable businesses 
were closed or sold. The company is now owned by Global Home Products 
LLC, an affiliate of Cerberus Capital Management LP. Today, Anchor 
Hocking designs and produces a comprehensive line of glass beverageware 
and tableware:

      Beverageware. Anchor produces a full line of dishwasher-
safe glass beverageware featuring both traditional and contemporary 
designs, from small juice glasses to large coolers and oversized 
pitchers. Anchor markets its beverageware under the Anchor 
Hocking' brand.
      Candle Containers. Anchor manufactures a variety of 
styles of glass accessories for taper, pillar and votive candles. Since 
late 2002, Anchor has introduced over 50 new candle products.
      Servingware. Anchor offers an extensive line of glass 
servingware products ranging from a simple, cut-crystal look to festive 
patterns, including serving platters, salad sets, cake sets, and punch 
bowls in many sizes, shapes and colors.
      Ovenware. Anchor offers various temperature-resistant 
glass ovenware products with popular patterns under the brand names 
Anchor Hocking', Fire-King', 
Essentials', Premium Plus' and Jade-
IteTM. Anchor offers glass lids for baking, plastic lids for 
storing, and easy-to-grip handles.
      Storageware. Anchor produces an extensive line of glass 
storageware products, including both colored and clear glass. These 
products are used to accent and organize the kitchen, bath or living 
room, with designs ranging from modern with cylindrical, stackable jars 
to ``nostalgic'' candy jars to festive seasonal jars.
II. Imports of Glassware and Tableware Have Increased Significantly
    H.R. 3116 targets glass articles valued at over $5 each, many of 
which fall within the categories described above. Statistics show that 
imports of glass tableware, especially from China and Turkey, have 
increased significantly in recent years. Over the same period, U.S. 
manufacturers' market share has steadily declined. Lower labor costs 
and lower natural gas prices in countries such as China and Turkey 
allow manufacturers in those countries to undersell American 
manufacturers despite the impact of freight and existing tariffs. This 
threatens the ability of American manufacturers to reinvest in 
facilities and workers in the U.S.
    The glassware industry is already experiencing significant 
competition from foreign competitors and imports in all glassware 
categories. In tariff subheading 7013.99.90, total imports have 
increased 80% from 1996 to 2004, from approximately $62 million to 
approximately $112 million in imports. China, one of the glassware 
industry's biggest competitors, has increased its imports in this 
category by almost 300% from 1996 to 2004, from approximately $8.6 
million to $34.4 million in imports. China's increase in year-to-date 
imports for January to June 2004 to the same period in 2005 is an 
additional 35.4%. This was achieved despite little investment in 
automated machine manufacturing. Between 2006 and 2008, it is estimated 
that two to three new fully automated tableware factories will come on 
line, adding significantly to China's export capacity.
    Turkey's imports (in dollars) in this category have increased 130% 
from 1996 to 2004. Imports from Turkey (in dollars) have increased an 
additional 63.5% from year-to-date 2004 to 2005. At this pace, even 
without changes to tariff rates, imports from China and Turkey will 
exceed Anchor's annual sales in three to five years. These increases 
are unsustainable in the current U.S. glass tableware market which is 
growing at less than 1% annually. These countries do not need 
additional help within this category to remain competitive.
    Increases in these proportions also have a devastating affect on 
U.S. jobs. In 2003, the Glass Manufacturing Industry Council estimated 
a 30% decline in domestic glass plants from 1980 (232) to 2000 (166). 
Anchor Container Glass estimates that the number of glass container 
plants in the United States has been reduced from 98 to 55 (44%) in the 
last 15 years. Employment in this high-wage manufacturing sector was 
down 4.4% from April 2004-April 2005 (Source: Working For America 
Institute). From 1975-2000, the number of U.S. Glass Tableware Industry 
union memberships declined 47%. Almost all of Anchor's employees are 
unionized through the United Steelworker's Association.
    Compounding this problem, the World Bank reports that China is set 
to emerge as the world's largest trading partner in the next 15 years. 
(Source: International Trade Daily). International Trade Daily also 
reports that China's exports continued to outpace imports in July 2005, 
bringing the total trade surplus for January to July 2005 to nearly $50 
billion. China continues to export at an alarming pace. The 
availability of cheap labor and inexpensive natural gas, the two major 
inputs for glassmaking, also ensures more cost-efficient pricing.
III. The Glassware Industry Is Already the Target of Reduced And/Or 
        Eliminated Tariffs Due To a Proliferation of Trade 
        Negotiations.
    As you know, the Doha Round is an ongoing round of multilateral 
negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) designed to reduce 
barriers to global trade. The members of the WTO set a goal of 
completing the Round by the end of 2006. As part of the Doha Round, WTO 
members are negotiating improved market access and tariff reduction. A 
major component of the Doha Round, negotiations on non-agricultural 
market access (NAMA), involves tariffs affecting the glassware 
industry. USTR is also negotiating tariff reductions that affect the 
glassware industry in a variety of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
    The U.S. government has historically treated glass tableware and 
dinnerware classified under HTS 7013 as import-sensitive products 
accorded preferential treatment. For example, under NAFTA, glassware 
received a 15-year phase-out period and some product categories were 
completely exempted from tariff reductions. Tariffs on other products 
were either eliminated immediately or phased out over 5-10 years. We 
are now told that the longest phase-out period possible will be 10 
years. If true, this accelerated schedule will significantly impact our 
business.
    Global Home Products hopes to secure longer phase-outs or product 
specific exemptions during the Doha Round and other FTA negotiations. 
Nevertheless, with tariff reductions looming on the horizon for this 
U.S. industry, it hardly needs accelerated reductions from 
miscellaneous tariff bills. Such reductions will chip away at our 
profit base even further, force reductions in capital spending for 
maintenance and equipment, lead to more lay-offs and potentially a 
plant closure. As it is, Anchor Glass sells some of its glassware and 
tableware below cost to remain competitive in this industry. In 
addition, Anchor Glass has had to lay-off more than 400 workers during 
the past three years, yet has been only marginally profitable during 
this period.
IV. Foreign Competitors Are Growing at an Alarming Rate
    The U.S. Industry has several major foreign competitors. One of 
those competitors is Pasabahce, headquartered in Turkey. Pasabahce has 
grown enormously in recent years, and currently has over 13,000 
employees and a broad product base. One of Pasabahce's stated goals is 
to increase its foreign sales--this statement is on the front page of 
its website. Our estimates show that Pasabahce has made the U.S. a 
major market focus. They are now competing aggressively in foodservice 
glassware sales, are adding a distribution center in the U.S. and 
currently supply glassware to Wal*Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond and Linens 
n' Things, three of the leading housewares retailers in the U.S. 
Another major competitor is Gibsons Overseas, headquartered in China. 
Gibsons has increased its size and breadth significantly over the last 
3-5 years by adding glass beverageware, serveware and storage items to 
its exports. Gibsons, despite the increases achieved to date, have yet 
to gain major glassware placements at Wal*Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond, 
and other retailers. However, we believe this will occur in due course 
giving them a substantial increase in export volume in the next few 
years. These are only examples of the competition the U.S. glass 
industry is facing.
    For these reasons, we strongly object to H.R. 3116. We believe that 
the elimination of the tariff on these glass items will result in a 
revenue loss for the United States and for the domestic glass 
manufacturing industry. For this reason, it also attracts controversy 
within the U.S. glass industry, as it will increase the likelihood of 
lost jobs and plant closings. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
our opposition to this bill, and we look forward to your response.
                                                 George E. Hamilton
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

     United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel
                                           New York, New York 10003
                                                  September 2, 2005
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Thomas and Chairman Shaw:

    The U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel strongly 
supports H.R. 3176, introduced by Rep. Jerry Weller, and urges its 
inclusion in the ``Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.'' The legislation, ``the 
CITA Transparency Act,'' would ensure that administrative actions and 
decisions on textile and apparel trade are conducted and arrived at 
openly and fairly. This legislation would clarify existing law, to 
ensure that the original intent of Congress is applied.
    With the end of the international textile quota program, including 
the elimination of bilateral textile agreements and phase-out of 
restrictions under the World Trade Organization, it is absolutely 
appropriate that ``Government in the Sunshine'' rules apply to the 
administrative processes applicable to trade in textile and apparel 
products, just as they apply to administrative proceedings for all 
other consumer goods.
    Transparency in government is a fundamental right for American 
companies and American consumers, and a concept the United States seeks 
to spread to our trading partners. Transparency provides a guarantee 
that the public can provide comments and that the public knows in 
advance the process for government decision-making and action.
    No one can argue that U.S. citizens and businesses should have 
adequate notice and opportunity to respond to government proposals. 
However standards and processes have long been the exception rather 
than the rule when it comes to actions by the inter-agency Committee 
for the Implementation of Textile Agreement (CITA). This inter-agency 
group was created under the Nixon Administration and consists of 
representatives from the Departments of State, Treasury, Labor and 
Commerce, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. At the time 
of the creation of CITA, when there was an international system of 
quotas on textile and apparel products, and numerous bilateral 
negotiations of textile agreements, there may have been a legitimate 
basis for CITA to invoke a ``foreign affairs'' exception to the 
Administrative Procedures Act with respect to some matters before 
it.\1\Today, however, in 2005, there is no basis for any exemption 
other than under the terms applicable to all other government agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In the past, CITA routinely asserted a ``foreign policy'' 
exemption to the APA, with respect to every action it takes, but that 
exemption applies only very narrowly to particular agency functions and 
not to an agency in total. See Mast Indus., Inc. v. Regan, 8 CIT 214, 
596 F. Supp. 1567, 1581 (1984) (``Thus certain war and defense 
functions are exempted, but not the War or Navy Departments in the 
performance of their other functions.'') (internal citation omitted). 
The exemption should not apply ``merely because [agency functions] have 
impact beyond the borders of the United States.'' Id. at 1581. The 
exemption's purpose is ``to allow more cautious and sensitive 
consideration of those matters which `so affect relations with other 
Governments that, for example, public rulemaking provisions would 
provoke definitely undesirable international consequences.' '' American 
Ass'n of Exporters and Importers-Textile and Apparel Group (``AAEI'') 
v. United States, 751 F.2d 1239, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting H.R. 
1980, 69th Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1946)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is totally appropriate that individuals and companies with 
business before CITA know in advance of government actions that could 
affect them, and that they are able to participate effectively in the 
administrative decision-making process. The efforts by CITA to continue 
to shield from public disclosure even day-to-day decisions and every 
meeting represent a throw-back to a time in American history when 
transparency was not the law of the land. Opening the procedures to 
public scrutiny will not eliminate the role of CITA, but merely bring 
its procedures into the twenty-first century.
    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.  552, was enacted 
by Congress to ensure that government operates openly and that all 
interested parties have advance notice of matters under consideration 
and a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making 
process. The main purpose of Section 552(a)(1) is to assure that 
``administrative policies affecting individual rights and obligations 
be promulgated pursuant to certain procedures so as to avoid the 
inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations.'' The 
APA rightly imposes an affirmative duty upon the agencies to disclose 
to the public what they have been doing, or plan to do, or declare what 
they will do.
    Disclosure, not secrecy, must be the dominant objective of all 
federal decision-making bodies, including CITA. Doing so will advance 
the basic purpose of the APA, to ensure an informed citizenry, which is 
vital to the functioning of a democratic society.
    USA-ITA strongly urges enactment of this legislation as promptly as 
possible.

                                                     Laura E. Jones
                                                 Executive Director

                                 

                                               Clariant Corporation
                                       Coventry, Rhode Island 02816
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 LHOB
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing on behalf of the Textile, Leather, Paper Division of 
Clariant Corporation to object to the suspension of duty on the 
substance identified in H.R. 3287, introduced by Representative Castle. 
H.R. 3287 proposes to suspend the duty on pro-jet cyan 1 RO feed and 
pro-jet cyan OF 1 RO feed.
    The requested duty suspension covers Direct Blue 199, which 
Clariant synthesizes in its Martin, SC facility, competing directly 
with the compound for which duty suspension is being requested.
    Clariant is a major manufacturer of specialty chemicals, including 
dyes, and employs approximately 180 people in the Martin, SC plant.
    Clariant opposes the granting of temporary duty suspension for the 
compound named in H.R. 3287.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Dan Packer
                                  Director of Technical Development

                                 

                                               Clariant Corporation
                                       Coventry, Rhode Island 02816
                                                    August 22, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 LHOB
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    I am writing on behalf of the Textile, Leather, Paper Division of 
Clariant Corporation to object to the suspension of duty on the 
substance identified in H.R. 3289, introduced by Representative Castle. 
H.R. 3289 proposes to suspend the duty on pro-jet yellow 1G stage.
    The requested duty suspension covers Direct Yellow 44, which 
Clariant makes in its Martin, SC facility, competing directly with the 
compound for which duty suspension is being requested.
    Clariant is a major manufacturer of specialty chemicals, including 
dyes, and employs approximately 180 people in the Martin, SC plant.
    Clariant opposes the granting of temporary duty suspension for the 
compound named in H.R. 3289.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Dan Packer
                                  Director of Technical Development

                                 

                                                          ATF, Inc.
                                        Lincolnwood, Illinois 60712
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of ATF Inc., I am writing in support of the inclusion of 
H.R. 3303 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and 
Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 3303 would suspend 
temporarily the deposit requirements and assessments of countervailing 
duties and antidumping duties on imports of Cold Heading Quality (CHQ) 
wire rod. This suspension is necessary for U.S. fastener manufacturers 
like my company to remain globally competitive.
    ATF Inc. manufactures metal threaded fasteners used in the 
automotive sector. We employ roughly 270 people at our facilities in 
Lincolnwood, IL and Kenosha, WI. Like much of America's manufacturing 
sector, ATF has met global challenges head on, but the countervailing 
duty and antidumping order in place on CHQ wire rod makes that 
difficult at best, and impossible at worst.
    The fasteners we produce for our customers require CHQ wire rod 
because of customer specifications and/or because it provides the 
chemistry and quality of steel necessary to meet critical requirements. 
It is so special that our industry, combined with customer and supplier 
input created a consensus standard, ASTM F2282.
    Because of the duties imposed on CHQ wire rod, ATF is forced to pay 
a premium for the CHQ we need at a time when we are fighting all other 
battles of manufacturing competitiveness. H.R. 3303 would allow us a 
fair opportunity to obtain the raw material we need at a global price.
                                                     Don Cunningham
                                                          President

                                 

                                                Federal Screw Works
                                   St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48080
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf Federal Screw Works, I am writing in support of the 
inclusion of H.R. 3303 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 3303 would suspend 
temporarily the deposit requirements and assessments of countervailing 
duties and antidumping duties on imports of Cold Heading Quality (CHQ) 
wire rod. This suspension is necessary for U.S. fastener manufacturers 
like my company to remain globally competitive.
    Federal Screw Works manufactures metal threaded fasteners used 
primarily in automotive original equipment applications. We employ 350 
people at our five facilities in Michigan. Like much of America's 
manufacturing sector, Federal Screw Works has met global challenges 
head on, but the countervailing duty and antidumping order in place on 
CHQ wire rod makes that difficult at best, and impossible at worst.
    The fasteners we produce for our customers require CHQ wire rod 
because it provides the chemistry and quality of steel necessary to 
meet critical requirements. It is so special that our industry, 
combined with customer and supplier input created a consensus standard, 
ASTM F2282.
    Because of the duties imposed on CHQ wire rod, Federal Screw Works 
is forced to pay a premium for the CHQ we need at a time when we are 
fighting other global battles for manufacturing survival. H.R. 3303 
would allow us a fair chance to obtain the raw material we need at a 
globally competitive price.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
                                                       John O'Brien
                                                     Vice President
                                                Sales and Marketing

                                 

                                           Illinois Tool Works Inc.
                                           Glenview, Illinois 60025
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Illinois Tool Works (ITW), I am writing in support of 
the inclusion of H.R. 3303 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade 
Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 3303 would suspend 
temporarily the deposit requirements and assessments of countervailing 
duties and antidumping duties on imports of Cold Heading Quality (CHQ) 
wire rod. This suspension is necessary for U.S. fastener manufacturers 
like my company to remain globally competitive.
    ITW manufactures metal threaded fasteners used in industrial 
applications, including safety-critical parts for the automotive 
industry. We employ more than 800 people in facilities in Wisconsin, 
Kentucky, Ohio and Illinois. Like much of America's manufacturing 
sector, ITW has met global challenges head on, but the countervailing 
duty and antidumping order in place on CHQ wire rod makes that 
difficult at best, and impossible at worst.
    The fasteners we produce for our customers require CHQ wire rod 
because of customer specifications and/or because it provides the 
chemistry and quality of steel necessary to meet critical requirements. 
It is so special that our industry, combined with customer and supplier 
input created a consensus standard, ASTM F2282.
    Because of the duties imposed on CHQ wire rod, ITW is forced to pay 
a premium for the CHQ we need at a time when we are fighting all other 
battles of manufacturing competitiveness. H.R. 3303 would allow us a 
fair opportunity to obtain the raw material we need at a global price.
                                                   Michael J. Lynch
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                     Industrial Fasteners Institute
                                              Cleveland, Ohio 44114
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Industrial Fasteners Institute (IFI), I am writing 
in support of the inclusion of H.R. 3303 in the Technical Corrections 
to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 3303 
would suspend temporarily the deposit requirements and assessments of 
countervailing duties and antidumping duties on imports of Cold Heading 
Quality (CHQ) wire rod. This suspension is necessary for U.S. fastener 
manufacturers to remain globally competitive.
    IFI represents America's producers of metal threaded fasteners, 
particularly those used in critical applications such as aerospace, 
automotive and other industrial sectors. Like much of America's 
manufacturing sector, the fastener industry has met global challenges 
head on, but they are finding it more and more difficult to compete 
globally due to the inappropriate application of dumping duties on CHQ. 
Congress can correct this situation by passage of H.R. 3303.
    Many of IFI's members produce threaded metal fasteners from CHQ 
wire rod, a unique product with specific chemical and strength 
properties necessary to meet our customers' requirements. CHQ is so 
unique that our industry, combined with customer and supplier input, 
created a consensus standard, ASTM F2282, to differentiate CHQ from 
industrial quality wire rod.
    In 2001, some domestic producers of industrial quality wire rod 
brought a dumping suit against several foreign producers. The suit 
encompassed all wire rod, including CHQ. The only two U.S. producers of 
CHQ at the time declined to participate in the case. Despite our best 
efforts to demonstrate that CHQ was a separate, distinct product that 
was in short supply in the U.S., the International Trade Commission 
(ITC) declined to exclude CHQ from the scope of the order.
    Since the imposition of the duties on all wire rod, including CHQ, 
the number of domestic fastener producers has continued to fall as has 
the demand. The remaining U.S. producer of CHQ, Charter Steel, does not 
produce CHQ in sufficient quantity to meet demand, forcing domestic 
fastener producers to purchase CHQ offshore and at a premium price.
    As a result, many domestic fastener producers are forced to pay a 
premium for CHQ because of the nature of the product, and an additional 
premium in the form of the antidumping duties paid to companies who do 
not make the product in the first place.
    H.R. 3303 will allow a temporary reprieve from this unfair 
situation until the ITC has a chance to review the case in its five-
year sunset review process in 2007. IFI urges you to include H.R. 3303 
in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty 
Suspension Bills.
                                                   Robert J. Harris
                                                  Managing Director

                                 

                                               MacLean-Fogg Company
                                                Mundelein, IL 60050
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of MacLean-Fogg Company, I am writing in support of the 
inclusion of H.R. 3303 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. Trade Laws 
and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 3303 would suspend 
temporarily the deposit requirements and assessments of countervailing 
duties and antidumping duties on imports of Cold Heading Quality (CHQ) 
wire rod. This suspension is necessary for U.S. fastener manufacturers 
like my company to remain globally competitive.
    MacLean-Fogg manufactures metal threaded fasteners used in 
industrial applications such as the aerospace and automotive sectors. 
We employ over 2000 people at our facilities in the United States. Like 
much of America's manufacturing sector, MacLean-Fogg has met global 
challenges head on, but the countervailing duty and antidumping order 
in place on CHQ wire rod makes that difficult at best, and impossible 
at worst.
    The fasteners we produce for our customers require CHQ wire rod 
because of customer specifications and/or because it provides the 
chemistry and quality of steel necessary to meet critical requirements. 
It is so special that our industry, combined with customer and supplier 
input created a consensus standard, ASTM F2282.
Chairman Shaw, because of the duties imposed on CHQ wire rod, MacLean-
    Fogg is forced to pay a premium for the CHQ wire rod we need at a 
    time when we are fighting all other battles of manufacturing 
    competitiveness. H.R. 3303 would allow us a fair opportunity to 
    obtain the raw material we need at a global price.
            Respectfully,
                                                  Timothy N. Taylor
                                                          President

                                 

                                       Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp.
                                       Columbia Station, Ohio 44028
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways & Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp., I am writing in support 
of the inclusion of H.R. 3303 in the Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills. H.R. 3303 would 
suspend temporarily the deposit requirements and assessments of 
countervailing duties and antidumping duties on imports of Cold Heading 
Quality (CHQ) wire rod. This suspension is necessary for U.S. fastener 
manufacturers like my company to remain globally competitive.
    Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp. manufactures metal threaded fasteners 
used in industrial applications such as the aerospace and automotive 
sectors. We employ 75 people at our facility in Cleveland, Ohio. Like 
much of America's manufacturing sector, Seaway Bolt & Specials Corp. 
has met global challenges head on, but the countervailing duty and 
antidumping order in place on CHQ wire rod makes that difficult at 
best, and impossible at worst.
    The fasteners we produce for our customers require CHQ wire rod 
because of customer specifications and/or because it provides the 
chemistry and quality of steel necessary to meet critical requirements. 
It is so special that our industry, combined with customer and supplier 
input created a consensus standard, ASTM F2282.
    Because of the duties imposed on CHQ wire rod, Seaway Bolt & 
Specials Corp. is forced to pay a premium for the CHQ we need at a time 
when we are fighting all other battles of manufacturing 
competitiveness. H.R. 3303 would allow us a fair opportunity to obtain 
the raw material we need at a global price.

                                                 Raymond L. Gurnick
                                                          President

                                 

      Statement of Paul C. Rosenthal, Wire Rod Producers Coalition
    The Wire Rod Producers Coalition, domestic producers of carbon and 
alloy steel wire rod (``CASWR''), strongly opposes efforts to 
legislatively suspend the collection of antidumping and countervailing 
duty deposits and assessments on certain cold heading quality (``CHQ'') 
wire rod made to ASTM F2882 for use in making certain fasteners. The 
Wire Rod Producers Coalition includes ISG Georgetown Inc., of 
Georgetown, South Carolina; Keystone Consolidated Industries of Peoria, 
Illinois and Dallas, Texas; and Gerdau Ameristeel, with facilities in 
Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Texas and Tennessee. This 
bill, H.R. 3303, was introduced by Representative Kirk (R-IL).
    The domestic CASWR industry strongly opposes the bill or its 
inclusion in any miscellaneous tariff legislation. Any attempt to 
legislatively exclude certain products from antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders is by its very nature controversial because 
the imports of such products have been found to contribute to the 
material injury of the domestic industry producing them. The proper 
place to seek an exclusion from the scope of an order is before the 
United States Department of Commerce, the agency with expertise in such 
matters. To the knowledge of the domestic industry, no party has 
attempted to seek such an exclusion before the Department of Commerce. 
Moreover, the United States International Trade Commission has already 
determined that the domestic industry produces CHQ wire rod and found 
that imports of dumped and/or subsidized wire rod, including CHQ wire 
rod, from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & 
Tobago, and Ukraine were causing material injury to the domestic wire 
rod industry. A legislative exclusion for these products is 
inappropriate, would be harmful to the domestic wire rod industry, and 
would be highly controversial.
BACKGROUND
    On August 31, 2001, members of the Wire Rod Producers Coalition 
filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions against a unfairly 
traded CASWR from a number of countries. The United States 
International Trade Commission found that the domestic wire rod 
industry was being materially injured by dumped and subsidized imports 
from various countries. In late 2002, antidumping duty orders were 
entered against dumped CASWR from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. Countervailing duty 
orders were entered against CASWR from Brazil and Canada. The 
countervailing duty order against Canada was later withdrawn.
    The Department of Commerce has administrative procedures for 
considering amendments to the scope of antidumping and countervailing 
duty orders. A number of requests to modify the scope of the orders 
were considered and rejected by the Commerce Department. See, e.g., 
3Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 Fed. Reg. 55,805 (August 30, 2002). No party 
has requested an exemption for CHQ wire rod at the Commerce Department. 
The domestic industry did grant scope exclusion requests for certain 
grade 1080 tire bead quality and certain grade l080 tire cord quality 
wire rod. Id. This demonstrates that the domestic industry is willing 
to consider reasonable requests for scope exclusions when circumstances 
warrant it. No such request had been made to the domestic industry for 
CHQ wire rod made to ASTM F2882 for use in making certain fasteners.
    CHQ quality wire rod is produced extensively by the domestic wire 
rod industry. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, 
Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 
Turkey and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421 and 731-TA-953, 954, 
9560959, 961 and 962 (Final), USITC Pub. 3546 at 11 (Oct. 2002). The 
International Trade Commission found no reason to separate this product 
from other wire rod products produced by the domestic industry when 
reaching its determination that such wire rod imports were a cause of 
material industry to the domestic industry. Id. 
REASONS FOR DOMESTIC INDUSTRY OPPOSITION TO THE EXCLUSION
    The domestic wire rod industry strongly opposes any such 
legislative exclusion to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders 
because there are appropriate administrative procedures through which 
to seek such exclusions which have not been followed in this case. The 
proper place for determining exclusions should be with the agencies 
that enforce the trade laws. Any attempt to undermine the efficacy of 
specific countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders legislatively, 
particularly without having first sought available administrative 
remedies, is per se controversial.
     The Commerce Department has an administrative procedure known as a 
``changed circumstance review'' that would permit purchasers to seek an 
administrative exclusion to the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders if the facts warrant such an exclusion. To grant a legislative 
exclusion would undermine the administrative process and lead to other 
attempts to weaken these antidumping and countervailing duty orders by 
legislatively excluding other products that the domestic industry can 
produce.
    An exclusion for CHQ wire rod will undermine the intended relief to 
the domestic CASWR industry that the existing antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders are providing and permit unfairly traded 
imports to enter the United States, unencumbered by the discipline of 
the orders. Prior to the antidumping orders, the domestic industry had 
undergone five straight years of operating losses and a raft of plant 
closure and bankruptcies caused by unfairly traded imports. Absent 
these orders, the condition of the domestic industry would have 
continued to decline, particularly in the difficult economy 
characterized today by increasing costs. CHQ wire rod was expressly 
included in the categories of imported wire rod that were found to be 
causing material injury to the United States wire rod industry.
    CHQ wire rod is a product that can be and is produced domestically. 
The United States International Trade Commission identified at least 
five domestic producers of CHQ wire rod. See USITC Pub. 3546 at 11. 
There is no evidence of a shortage of such material. To grant the 
legislative exclusion proposed will undermine the efforts of domestic 
producers to produce and market this product and will undercut the 
capital investments that have been made and are being made by the 
domestic industry to produce CASWR products. A legislative exclusion 
will remove any incentive for purchasers to develop domestic suppliers 
for this product.
    Consumers of CHQ wire rod are not precluded from purchasing 
imported products if an exclusion from the antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders is not granted. The antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders do not cover all import sources (they 
exclude major European and Japanese producers for example), nor do they 
create quotas. Purchasers have the choice of purchasing such products 
from domestic producers, from foreign producers not subject to the 
order, or from producers subject to the orders at fair market prices 
(i.e., with the payment of antidumping and/or countervailing duties).
    Exclusions to antidumping and countervailing duty orders should be 
addressed on a case-bay-case basis at the agencies that enforce those 
laws. This bill, and the undermining of the antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders on CASWR (and indeed on the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws themselves) that it will engender, is highly 
controversial and should not be the subject of miscellaneous tariff 
legislation.
    For further information please contact Paul Rosenthal 
(202.342.8486), Alan Luberda (202.342.8835) or Dana Wood (202.342.8608) 
of Collier Shannon Scott, LLP.

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
       RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3353. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3353 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                  Chevron USA, Inc.
                                        San Ramon, California 94583
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Chevron USA, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3353. We support the 
inclusion of HR 3353 into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kleier

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3353. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3353 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3354. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3354 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                  Chevron USA, Inc.
                                        San Ramon, California 94583
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Chevron USA, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3354. We support the 
inclusion of HR 3354 into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kleier

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3354. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3354 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3355. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3355 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                                  Chevron USA, Inc.
                                        San Ramon, California 94583
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Chevron USA, Inc., regarding the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3355. We support the 
inclusion of HR 3355 into this Congress' Miscellaneous Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kleier

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3355. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3355 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3356. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3356 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3356. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3356 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 25, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3357. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3357 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the need for the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein 
are due to the U.S. Custom Service misapplying the retroactive effect 
of the statutory changes made to the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-36).
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 26, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding the liquidation or 
reliquidation of certain drawback claims as set forth in HR 3357. We 
support the inclusion of HR 3357 into this Congress' Miscellaneous 
Trade Package.
    Although the companies involved in this bill are former clients, we 
feel this legislation clearly will right a wrong and provide for proper 
liquidation or reliquidation of the drawback claims set forth therein.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

  Statement of Hallock Northcott, American Association of Exporters & 
                               Importers
    On behalf of the members of the American Association of Exporters 
and Importers (AAEI), I write in support of H.R. 3363, amending the 
Tariff Act of 1930(the Act).
    From the vantage point of the U.S. manufacturing and export 
community, H.R. 3363 would make badly-needed practical and substantive 
modifications to the provisions of the Act relating to drawback claims.
    As you well know, drawback has long played an important role in the 
promotion of U.S. exports and will, we believe, contribute 
significantly in the future. Enabling American businesses to continue 
to compete and prosper in the 21st century's global economy requires 
that our trade laws must take notice of and evolve with the changing 
nature of such commerce. The provisions of H.R. 3363 would make an 
important contribution to this, and would, in the near term and over 
time dramatically increase welcome relief to U.S. exporters.
    As you know, the purpose of the drawback law is to reduce duties 
paid on imports that are subsequently exported or processed and then 
exported. Its purpose has always been vital in allowing American 
business and labor to compete more effectively in foreign markets by 
assuring that whatever enters into the cost of doing business in such 
markets is free from the additional cost of U.S. Customs duties. As a 
result, U.S. export trade is facilitated; the balance of trade is 
improved; jobs are created; and consequently the general economy 
benefits. To this end, the drawback law should be construed to most 
efficiently accomplish the purpose intended.
    H.R. 3363 is consistent with the national economic and trade policy 
purpose and spirit of the drawback law as noted above, and AAEI fully 
supports the proposed improvements to the current drawback law. The 
amendments are the result of several years of discussion between 
members of the drawback trade, AAEI representatives and CBP, under the 
auspices of the Trade Support Network, resulting in a drawback 
consensus document. The drawback consensus document, which outlined the 
areas of agreement between CBP and the drawback trade community, is 
incorporated within statutory language as H.R. 3363.
    AAEI believes that the following highlights reflect the major 
positive changes in the drawback law and the advantages of those 
changes to both CBP and the drawback trade community:

    1.  The new statute would make drawback more available to any size 
U.S. company. This represents a dramatic improvement over the current 
process, where burdensome administrative requirements make drawback a 
cost-effective option for only a portion of those companies that are 
eligible to receive it. Because of the complex nature of the current 
drawback program, many U.S. companies that are our members cannot 
afford to take advantage of the drawback program. The simplified 
process, reduced time frames and objective standards of the new statute 
would give exporters the opportunity to reduce their costs by obtaining 
drawback refunds, thus making them more competitive in the global 
marketplace.
    2.  A corollary benefit is the handling of substitution. The basic 
drawback concepts of substitution, i.e., same kind and quality and 
commercial interchangeability, as well as the numerous types of 
drawback will be condensed into the globally accepted standard of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to an eight-digit 
level. This is a substantial advancement, as drawback will be based on 
an objective standard that would eliminate the need for subjective 
interpretation. This change alone will save considerable administrative 
costs for CBP and should minimize the need for drawback claimants to 
pursue drawback issues in the courts.
    3.  The drawback statute will fully integrate the drawback process 
into CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is the most 
wide-ranging government trade facilitation program now underway and is 
anticipated to have a significant impact on trade compliance practices. 
In this regard, the drawback claim filing process will be automated, 
thereby relieving CBP of an administrative burden and simplifying 
record keeping and claim filing for drawback claimants. Edits and 
checks on a drawback claim will be handled electronically by hitting 
the drawback claim data against data in CBP's new Automated Commercial 
Environment.
    4.  The drawback statute will eliminate the need for rulings and 
approvals prior to filing claims. This will eliminate the long wait 
time (approximately six to 12 months) between requesting approval for 
drawback and filing the first claim thus allowing drawback claimants to 
receive refunds quicker.
    5.  Under the new statute, time frames will be simplified so the 
drawback process will take place in an inclusive five-year time frame. 
This will reduce the recordkeeping time frames for drawback records and 
alleviate the recordkeeping burden on both CBP and the drawback 
claimant.

    With H.R. 3363 as an essential base, we suggest the committee 
review the following areas to explore opportunities that would better 
meet the intent and purpose of the drawback law:

    1.  Both NAFTA and the Chile FTA restrict drawback making it 
difficult for drawback claimants to claim drawback and for CBP to 
administer the drawback claims for exports to these areas. We feel that 
some relief for the drawback claimants and CBP can be given by applying 
the eight-digit HTSUS substitution concept to NAFTA and the Chile FTA. 
We believe there is allowance for this in the FTA language. The 
appropriate area to address this concern, we believe, is Subsection (e) 
concerning refunds, waivers, or reductions under certain free trade 
agreements.
    2.  Destruction in lieu of export is existent in the current 
drawback statute for all types of drawback. The new statute restricts 
the use of destruction to only those items that can be traced to the 
entry on which they were entered. This methodology is extremely 
cumbersome for the trade to manage. Destruction drawback under the new 
statute should at least equal destruction drawback under the existing 
statute. Subsection (j) concerning destruction in lieu of export, is 
recommended for examination as it addresses this aspect.
    3.  Based on bonding for drawback payments, it is the drawback 
claimant and claimant's surety that are liable, not the importer. 
Accordingly, we suggest that Subsection (b)(3) on liability does not 
need to be included in the statute.

    In conclusion, as the committee continues to examine and pursue 
courses of action to remove restrictive trade barriers and to 
communicate these actions to the public, we look forward to the 
creation of a detailed legislative history to accompany H.R. 3363.
    We appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3363.

                                 

                                       American Petroleum Institute
                                               Washington, DC 20005
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) represents over 400 
companies involved in all aspects of the oil and gas industry, 
including exploration, production, transportation, refining, and 
marketing. API strongly supports the proposed miscellaneous corrections 
to trade legislation as described in your advisory from the Committee 
on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, dated July 25, 
specificallyH.R. 3363, which is under consideration for inclusion in a 
Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty Suspension package.
    The legislative changes proposed under H.R. 3363, have the support 
of U.S. industry, specifically domestic manufacturers and exporters in 
numerous market sectors, and is a complete rewrite of the drawback 
statute, 19 USC  1313. This legislation will substantially ease and 
decrease the administrative burden and costs on U.S. industry and the 
Federal government in the administration of the duty drawback program. 
This drawback statute rewrite was drafted with the joint support of the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') and U.S. industry in 
working with Congress. The drawback statute will fully integrate the 
drawback process into CBP's Automated Commercial Environment, ease 
CBP's involvement in the administration of the drawback program, and 
simplify record keeping and the claim filing process for the drawback 
trade community.
    We do have one reservation with respect to our support for this 
bill. Under current law, a number of companies have the ability to link 
their import/export activity to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States
    (``HTSUS'') in effect as of January 1, 2000. It is our 
understanding that the final language for this bill will have adequate 
linkage to the 2000 HTSUS. We ask for your committee's assistance in 
ensuring the preservation of the status quo for this one issue.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Michael Platner

                                 

                                              C. J. Holt & Co. Inc.
                                          Oradell, New Jersey 07649
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    I am pleased to comment on your July 25 request for public comments 
regarding technical corrections to U.S. trade laws, and specifically 
H.R. 3363, a bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to drawback.
    Historically, the purpose of the drawback law (a program that 
reduces duties paid on imports that are subsequently exported or 
processed and then exported) has always been to assist American 
business and labor to compete more effectively in foreign markets by 
assuring that whatever enters into the cost of doing business in such 
markets is free from the additional cost of U.S. Customs duties. As a 
result, U.S. export trade is facilitated; the balance of trade is 
improved; jobs are created; and consequently the general economy 
benefits. To this end, the drawback law should be construed to 
accomplish the purpose intended.
    H.R. 3363 is consistent with the purpose and spirit of the drawback 
law. These amendments are the result of several years of discussion 
between members of the drawback trade and Customs & Border Protection 
(CBP) under the auspices of the Trade Support Network, resulting in a 
drawback consensus document. The drawback consensus document outlined 
the areas of agreement between CBP and the drawback trade community and 
was written in statutory language as H.R. 3363.
    The following highlights the major changes in the drawback law and 
the advantages of those changes to both CBP and the drawback trade 
community:

    1.  The basic drawback concepts of substitution, i.e., same kind 
and quality and commercial interchangeability, as well as the numerous 
types of drawback will be condensed into the globally accepted standard 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to an eight-
digit level. Drawback will be based on an objective standard, 
eliminating the need for subjective interpretation. This change alone 
will save considerable administrative costs for CBP and minimize the 
need for drawback claimants to pursue drawback issues in the courts.
    2.  The drawback statute will fully integrate the drawback process 
into CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The drawback claim 
filing process will be automated, relieving CBP of an administrative 
burden and simplifying record keeping and claim filing for drawback 
claimants.
    3.  The drawback statute will eliminate the need for rulings and 
approvals prior to filing claims. This will eliminate the long wait 
time (approximately six to 12 months) between requesting approval for 
drawback and filing the first claim thus allowing drawback claimants to 
receive refunds quicker.
    4.  Under the new statute, time frames will be simplified so the 
drawback process will take place in an inclusive five year time frame. 
This will reduce the recordkeeping time frames for drawback records and 
alleviate the recordkeeping burden on both CBP and the drawback 
claimant.
    5.  The new statue will make drawback more available to any size 
U.S. company. Because of the complex nature of the current drawback 
program, many U.S. companies cannot afford to take advantage of the 
drawback program. The simplified process, reduced time frames and 
objective standards for drawback will give more exporters the 
opportunity to reduce their costs by obtaining drawback refunds, thus 
making them more competitive in the global marketplace.

    In addition we feel that the following areas in H.R. 3363 should be 
reviewed by the Committee to see if they can be changed to better meet 
the intent and purpose of the drawback law:

    1.  Subsection (e) concerning refunds, waivers, or reductions under 
certain free trade agreements. Both NAFTA and the Chile FTA restrict 
drawback making it difficult for drawback claimants to claim drawback 
and for CBP to administer the drawback claims for exports to these 
areas. We feel that some relief for the drawback claimants and CBP can 
be given by applying the eight-digit HTSUS substitution concept to 
NAFTA and the Chile FTA. We believe there is allowance for this in the 
FTA language.
    2.  Subsection (j) concerning destruction in lieu of export. 
Destruction in lieu of export is existent in the current drawback 
statute for all types of drawback. The new statute restricts the use of 
destruction to only those items that can be traced to the entry on 
which they were entered. This methodology is extremely cumbersome for 
the trade to manage. Destruction drawback under the new statute should 
at least equal destruction drawback under the existing statute.
    3.  Subsection (b)(3) on liability does not need to be included in 
the statute. Based on bonding for drawback payments, it is the drawback 
claimant and the claimant's surety that are liable, not the importer.
    4.  To insure a clear understanding of the intent of the new 
drawback statute, we strongly urge that a detailed legislative history 
accompany H.R. 3363.

                                                    Edwin W. Van Ek
                                                          President

                                 

                                      Charter Brokerage Corporation
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of Charter Brokerage Corporation regarding HR 3363.
     With respect to the above referenced bill, the legislation is 
strongly supported by U.S. industry, specifically domestic 
manufacturers and exporters in numerous market sectors, and is a 
complete rewrite of the drawback statute, 19 USC  1313. It will 
substantially ease and decrease the administrative burden and costs on 
U.S. industry and the Federal government in the administration of the 
duty drawback program. This drawback rewrite is supported by and was 
drafted with the joint support of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') and U.S. industry in working with Congress. The 
drawback statute will fully integrate the drawback process into CBP's 
Automated Commercial Environment, ease CBP's involvement in the 
administration of the drawback program, and simplify record keeping and 
the claim filing process for the drawback trade community.
    We do have one reservation with respect to our support for this 
bill. Under current law, many companies have the ability to link their 
import/export activity to the 2000 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). It is our understanding that the final 
language for this bill will have adequate linkage to the 2000 HTSUS. We 
ask for your committee's assistance in ensuring the preservation of the 
status quo for this one issue.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Bobby Waid
                                           Executive Vice President

                                 

                                         Comstock & Theakston, Inc.
                                          Oradell, New Jersey 07649
                                                 September 01, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    Comstock & Theakston, Inc., which has served the trade community as 
drawback specialists continuously since 1894, is pleased to comment on 
your July 25, 2005 request for written comments on technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws, and specifically H.R. 3363, a bill to 
amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to drawback.
    For the past several years the Trade Support Network Committee has 
been working with the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to draft a new statute that will relieve CBP of much of the 
burden of administering the drawback program, simplify the record-
keeping and claims process for the trade community, and fully integrate 
the drawback program into the new ACE import process. For the exporting 
community the new statute will allow companies to continue taking 
advantage of drawback, which is the only WTO-legal export incentive 
still available for U.S. companies.
    Historically, as you are aware, the purpose of the drawback law has 
always been to assist American business and labor to compete more 
effectively in foreign markets by assuring that whatever enters into 
the cost of doing business in such markets is free from the additional 
cost of U.S. Customs duties. As a result, U.S. export trade is 
facilitated; the balance of trade is improved; jobs are created; and 
consequently the general economy benefits. To this end, the drawback 
law should be construed to accomplish the purpose intended. The 
provisions of H.R. 3363 are consistent with the purpose and spirit of 
the drawback law as noted above, and Comstock & Theakston, Inc. fully 
supports these amendments to the drawback law.
    The provisions in H.R. 3363 will be advantageous to both CBP and 
the drawback trade community in several ways. First, the drawback 
concepts of substitution, as well as the numerous types of drawback, 
will be condensed into the globally accepted standard of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States to an eight-digit subheading 
level. Drawback will thus be based on an objective standard, 
eliminating the need for subjective interpretation and the 
administrative time and effort that accompany this. This change will 
save administrative costs for CBP and alleviate the need for drawback 
claimants to pursue drawback issues in the courts.
    Second, the drawback statute will fully integrate the drawback 
process into CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The drawback 
claim filing process will eventually be completely automated, relieving 
CBP of an administrative burden and simplifying record keeping and 
claim filing for drawback claimants.
    Third, the drawback statute will eliminate the need for rulings and 
approvals prior to filing claims. This will reduce a significant 
administrative burden for CBP and an often lengthy delay for drawback 
claimants between requesting approvals for drawback and filing the 
first claim.
    Fourth, under the new statute time frames will be simplified so 
that the drawback process takes place within a five year time frame 
from importation to filing a drawback claim. This will alleviate the 
record keeping burden on both CBP and drawback claimants.
    Finally, the new statue will make drawback more available to any 
U.S. company, regardless of its size. Because of the complex nature of 
the current drawback program, many U.S. companies cannot afford to take 
advantage of the drawback program. The proposed simplified process and 
objective standards for drawback will give more U.S. exporters the 
opportunity to reduce their costs by obtaining drawback refunds, thus 
making them more competitive in the global marketplace.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 3363.
            Sincerely,
                                                William A. Hagedorn
                                                     Vice President

                                 

                                    Customs Advisory Services, Inc.
                                                  Atlanta, GA 30354
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade of the
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    We have reviewed the subject document and the numerous proposed 
bills included therein. In general, we support the provisions of the 
legislation as a reasonable way of reducing U.S. companies' continued 
cost of doing business in the global economy. Of particular interest to 
numerous U.S. small and minority businesses, is the inclusion in the 
legislation of H.R. 3363. H.R. 3363, as currently proposed, is a 
significant revision of the U.S. duty drawback laws as described in 
Section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19.U.S.C. 1313).
    Our company has historically supported U.S. drawback law as a 
method of allowing U.S. companies to compete internationally in the 
global marketplace. U.S. duty drawback remains one of the few legally 
authorized and WTO approved methods allowing U.S. companies to compete 
effectively in foreign markets by assuring elimination of U.S. duties 
from international pricing of new materials and finished goods that 
pass through the U.S. U.S. export trade and U.S. jobs are both created 
when companies are allowed to drawback duties when products are 
exported from the U.S. Accordingly, U.S. duty drawback law must be 
retained and its methodology simplified in order to allow the 
participation in the program by the greatest number of companies. In 
general, we support H.R. 3363; however, some principles of the proposed 
legislation require clarification. Our specific comments and 
recommendations follow.
Section (a)
    (1)(A): Simplification of substitution drawback using eight digit 
HTS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) numbers will 
benefit all entities, public and private sectors, involved in the 
drawback process. U.S. companies involved in drawback will now have 
easier set up rules in determining substitution of goods and raw 
materials. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be able to monitor 
drawback activity at the HTS level electronically. Furthermore, CBP and 
the business community, in general, will benefit through the 
elimination of significant time delays in reviewing CBP drawback 
approvals for specific rulings for substitution drawback. The 
substitution criteria will no longer be subject to CBP determination; 
rather it will involve commercial application of HTS item standards.
Section (b)
    (b)(1): A drawback claimant should also be any party that is the 
legal successor to any other company. This language currently exists in 
19 U.S.C. 1313 and it permits companies combining their business 
operations to benefit from the un-used drawback rights of the 
predecessor entities.
    (b)(2): Although importers and drawback claimants shall be held 
jointly and severally liable for the drawback process, we believe that 
CBP monitoring and auditing of the drawback process is essential to 
ensure compliance with the law and regulations. CBP must effectively 
continue to monitor the process in order to prevent fraud, waste or 
abuse in the program by unscrupulous or unethical claimants.
Section (e)
    (5) Heading for this item should read ``Total Amount of Duties, 
Taxes, Fees Paid or Owed.'' The heading would then be consistent with 
the description of the amounts shown in the text of the paragraph.
    (6) Drawback, as herein described, shall be retained in its present 
form in all future Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) negotiated between the 
United States of America and another country (``the parties''). A ten 
year phase-out period for exports between the parties which are 
eligible for drawback shall begin January 1 of the year following the 
elimination of all duties on products shipped between the parties.
Section (g)
    This paragraph should be modified to add the following sentence.
    Additionally, over-quota duty paid on tobacco may be refunded under 
either direct identification un-used or manufacturing drawback. 19 
U.S.C. 1313(j)(1) or 1313(a), respectively.
    The wording modification shown above only requires the new law 
remain consistent with the current law regarding drawback on over-quota 
tobacco.
Section (i)
    (1)(a) Drawback for merchandise destroyed should be allowable under 
the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1313 (j)(2) and (b) respectively. Current 
law allows substitution drawback for merchandise and/or articles 
destroyed. The new drawback statute should be no more restrictive than 
the existing drawback legislation.
Section (n) Definitions
    (1) DRAWBACK--The term `drawback' means, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, a refund of 99 percent of applicable duties, taxes 
and fees paid pursuant to Federal law, and not refunded under any other 
law, in a case . . .
    The revised wording inserting the ``notwithstanding . . . 
``language allows the proposed definition of drawback to remain 
consistent with current language in Subsection 1313(j)(2) of the 
current statute. Further, the deletion of the language ``upon 
importation of merchandise'' eliminates language Customs has 
historically used to restrict drawback. This language is too 
restrictive and had been interpreted by Customs to mean only duties, 
taxes and fees paid ``because'' of the importation of merchandise.
    (5) In order to clarify the definition of substitute merchandise, 
the following sentence should be added to this definition:
    Any merchandise--8-digit HTS subheading. All merchandise showing 
the same 8-digit HTS subheading shall be considered commercially 
interchangeable with all other merchandise of the same 8-digit 
subheading. When the two--
    We respectfully request that modifications be made to HR 3363 in 
order to permit changes to the drawback law to benefit all companies, 
especially those small and minority businesses engaged in international 
trade.
    If you have any questions please contact me.
            Truly yours,
                                                   George M. Keller
                                                          President

                                 

                                       DANZAS AEI Drawback Services
                                               Houston, Texas 77084
                                                    August 29, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    These written comments are submitted pursuant to Trade Advisory 
#TR-3 issued on Monday, July 25, 2005. These comments are submitted on 
behalf of DANZAS AEI Drawback Services, regarding our positive support 
for HR 3363.
    With respect to the above referenced bill, the legislation is 
strongly supported by U.S. industry, specifically domestic 
manufacturers and exporters in numerous market sectors, and is a 
complete rewrite of the drawback statute, 19 USC  1313. It will 
substantially ease and decrease the administrative burden and costs on 
U.S. industry and the Federal government in the administration of the 
duty drawback program. This drawback rewrite is supported by and was 
drafted with the joint support of the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') and U.S. industry in working with Congress. The 
drawback statute will fully integrate the drawback process into CBP's 
Automated Commercial Environment, ease CBP's involvement in the 
administration of the drawback program, and simplify record keeping and 
the claim filing process for the drawback trade community.
    We do reserve one caveat with respect to our support for this bill. 
Under current law, many companies have the ability to link their 
import/export activity to the 2000 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). It is our understanding that the final 
language for this bill will have adequate linkage to the 2000 HTSUS. We 
ask for your committee's assistance in ensuring that the status quo is 
preserved for this one issue.
    Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please do 
not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We thank the Committee for its 
consideration of these comments.
            Sincerely,
                                                         J.W. Brown

                                 

                                              Florida Citrus Mutual
                                            Lakeland, Florida 33801
                                                  September 2, 2005
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF POSITION
    These comments are submitted on behalf of Florida Citrus Mutual 
(FCM) of Lakeland, Florida, in response to the invitation of the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for written comments for the 
record on technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous 
duty suspension proposals. See Advisory No. TR-3 (July 25, 2005). FCM 
is a voluntary cooperative association whose active membership consists 
of more than 11,000 Florida growers of citrus for processing and fresh 
consumption. FCM represents more than 90 percent of Florida's citrus 
growers. FCM's membership also accounts for as much as 80 percent of 
all oranges grown in the United States for processing into juice and 
other citrus products. FCM's comments are limited to the ``technical 
correction'' contained in H.R. 3363, ``To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 
relating to drawback.''
    It is FCM's position that the current drawback program, while 
intended to encourage domestic productive activity through the refund 
of duties paid on imported raw materials or substitute articles, can 
also pose negative effects to the U.S. citrus industry by reducing the 
level of protection afforded by the tariff, because the program 
encourages imports, but may or may not encourage an equal amount of 
exports upon which drawback claims are made. In addition, the drawback 
program benefits those who do the greatest amount of importing, which, 
in the case of orange juice, are the foreign-owned (mostly Brazilian-
owned) processors, reprocessors, and blenders in Florida, whose loyalty 
is primarily to their foreign parent companies and their much greater 
investment in Brazilian processing facilities, not to the U.S. 
industry. Finally, we are concerned that the program encourages 
suppressed, ``commoditized'' pricing levels for orange juice which may 
be deemed legally interchangeable for drawback purposes, which may 
undermine the efforts of domestic sellers to market premium priced 
Florida juice. While FCM does not oppose the drawback program per se, 
we are concerned with the proposed modifications to the existing 
program which may accentuate or facilitate these potential negative 
impacts.
    FCM is still assessing the potential impact of the drawback changes 
contained in H.R. 3363. While we are not prepared to oppose it 
outright, we are not convinced that the changes in their current form 
will result in a net benefit to Florida's citrus growers. Drawback is 
particularly difficult to analyze, in large part, because we have not 
been able to obtain from the Federal Government any data on actual 
drawback claims. One may easily determine what dutiable quantities are 
being imported and what quantities are being exported, but can only 
guess what percentage of exports result in paid drawback claims. 
Secondly, it is difficult to forecast the impact of these changes in 
the midst of an antidumping investigation that could alter the nature 
of future orange juice imports.
    FCM, however, would like to help inform the current drawback debate 
by offering the following comments. In addition, FCM would like to 
continue participating in discussions on the possible ramifications of 
these drawback changes, as well as others that may further the 
interests of the entire U.S. citrus industry, rather than a select 
group of Brazilian firms.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL LIBERALIZE DRAWBACK
    Currently, the dollar amount of duties drawn back is limited by the 
volume of exported juice qualified to claim drawback. If the 
qualification period is extended from 3 years to 5 years (regardless of 
whether manufacturing or unused merchandise drawback is claimed) and 
the product eligibility requirements are incorporated into a more 
liberal tariff classification interchangeability standard, there will 
likely be a significant expansion in drawback claims made for orange 
juice. That expansion will be most dramatic in the first few years 
after liberalization, because claims filed on exports in the first few 
years could cover all the newly interchangeable goods imported in the 
past 5 years that were ineligible for drawback under the current law.
    The extension to a 5-year qualification period would also provide a 
much longer window for drawing back duties paid during an import surge. 
For instance, an importer who has alternative markets for the foreign-
origin juice outside of the United States, and knows he has only 3 
years from the date of import to file a drawback claim, may choose to 
moderate import levels in a given year so that the current duties paid 
will not greatly exceed the amount he calculates that he can recover 
with drawback over the next 3 years. However, if the importer is 
allowed five years, instead of three, to make the qualifying export and 
claim drawback against those duties, he has less constraint built into 
the system to import large volumes in a given year, hoping that 
subsequent years will see lower demand or less favorable pricing 
conditions and still permit sufficient time to export enough volume to 
claim drawback under the expanded five-year qualification period. For 
an agricultural commodity like orange juice, this could very well 
contribute to the mindset that creates import surges.
DRAWBACK ON ORANGE JUICE PRIMARILY BENEFITS IMPORTERS, AND LIBERALIZED 
        DRAWBACK EXPANDS IMPORTERS' BENEFITS
    The U.S. drawback program was established to encourage U.S. 
commerce and manufacturing by enabling U.S. industry to better compete 
in foreign markets. H.R. 3363 advances this objective by liberalizing 
the drawback program, thus allowing duties to be drawn back for 
transactions that may not be eligible for drawback under the current 
law, and eliminating some requirements that, in the past, may have 
impeded the achievement of these goals with respect to some articles. 
The new bill also clearly serves the Government's objective of 
automating the drawback program through simplified interchangeability 
standards (i.e., tariff item matching), and eliminating the outdated 
and time-consuming paper-based claims system, in line with Customs' 
other automation priorities. However, FCM is concerned that such an 
expansion of the drawback program for citrus may confer commercial and 
manufacturing benefits in a discriminatory way, as it provides much 
greater benefits to the large Brazilian-owned processors in Florida 
that do most of the importing for their own accounts and, thus, hold 
the most drawback credits, while providing minimal, if any, benefits to 
Florida orange growers and processors of Florida-grown oranges. The 
global citrus industry is already characterized by tremendous market 
power held by the few members of the Brazilian processing industry, 
which consists of three large companies who not only produce most of 
the world's orange juice, but also own a large percentage of the orange 
juice shipping resources such as juice tanker ships. These are the 
ships upon which Florida growers and Florida-based processors will have 
to rely to export Florida product to other markets. Since the drawback 
credits would be negotiable instruments in the hands of the Brazilian-
dominated importers, and since those importers control the vast 
majority of the shipping resources that may be used to export 
domestically-produced orange juice to other markets; the decision 
whether and how to use these credits, and the price at which they are 
negotiated, is of critical importance to the issue of whether the 
domestic industry realizes the benefit of liberalized standards. Simply 
providing a potential export volume outlet for domestically produced 
juice through the motivation of drawback does not guarantee the grower 
or Florida-based processor that such exports will be at meaningful 
prices. The presumed benefit to Florida of liberalized drawback 
standards through the expanded movement of Florida juice to export 
markets can easily be consumed in the cost of ``sharing'' the expanded 
drawback benefits and the cost of shipping that juice on the Brazilian-
owned vessels. The benefits could easily accrue almost entirely to the 
Brazilian capital owners and importers, with only a minimal benefit 
bestowed on Florida growers who have been looking at expanded drawback 
qualification as the key to expanded outlets for their product. Any 
policy that contributes solely to the strength of the already highly 
concentrated orange juice industry is detrimental in the long-run to 
commerce and manufacturing in the U.S. citrus growing and processing 
industry.
IMPACT OF LIBERALIZED DRAWBACK ON PRICES
    There is some indication that the liberalization of drawback could 
have a small positive effect on orange juice (OJ) prices within the 
United States to the extent that it would make the drawback program 
easier to use and, therefore, create demand for U.S. OJ abroad. A 
theoretical increased demand for U.S. exports could then put much 
needed upward pressure on U.S. orange juice prices, hence, returns to 
U.S. growers, which are often tied to the price of bulk orange juice. 
This price improvement, however, is expected to be minimal in light of 
the small portion of U.S. orange juice supplies that are exported, the 
relatively small size of U.S. exports compared to world demand, and the 
relatively small change in the drawback program.
    In addition, the proposed standards would allow the 
interchangeability of different grades of juice, so long as they are 
classifiable within the same eight-digit HTSUS item. This would permit 
the drawback of duties on lower grades of imports when higher grades of 
juice are exported, which could, over time, lower the average grade of 
U.S. orange juice imports. This would have a price-depressing effect on 
U.S. orange juice prices, which would counter any price improvements 
created by increased demand for exports. Additional research will need 
to be conducted concerning the grades demanded most in the United 
States, versus the grades demanded in our chief export markets before 
we can draw any firm conclusions on price impacts.
    Additionally, as mentioned above, drawback liberalization could 
lead to more frequent import surges and an overall higher level of 
imports that will not necessarily be equal to the level of increase in 
exports. This strong possibility represents a significant threat to 
U.S. orange juice prices.
CONCLUSION
    FCM understands the virtues of easing the administrative burden of 
the drawback program, especially for many products and commodities of 
U.S. industries that do not share the unique market characteristics of 
orange juice. However, FCM is not convinced that these virtues outweigh 
the potential disadvantages that the proposed standards pose for the 
U.S. citrus industry. We encourage the Subcommittee on Trade to take 
these comments into consideration in determining whether to incorporate 
the proposed drawback modification in the 2005 Miscellaneous Tariff 
Bill. We look forward to participating in, and sharing with the 
Committee, continued research and debate on drawback.
                                                     Andrew LaVigne
                                     Executive Vice President & CEO

                                 

                                               Joint Industry Group
                                               Washington, DC 20006
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Joint Industry Group (JIG) and its Drawback 
Committee, I am pleased to comment on your July 25 request for public 
comments regarding technical corrections to U.S. trade laws, and 
specifically H.R. 3363, a bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating 
to drawback.
    The Joint Industry Group (JIG) is a member driven coalition of over 
one hundred sixty companies, trade associations and businesses actively 
involved in international trade. JIG examines the concerns of the 
business community relative to current and proposed international 
trade-related policies, actions, legislation and regulations. The 
coalition helps develop solutions to these concerns by working with 
Congress, the U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Protection (CBP) 
(formerly the U.S. Customs Service), Department of Commerce, USTR, and 
other government agencies. JIG membership represents more than several 
hundreds of billion U.S. dollars in international trade.
    JIG was organized in 1976 to serve as the private sector voice in 
customs matters. Over the years we have worked in close cooperation 
with the CBP on numerous trade issues. In 1993, our coalition served as 
the main force behind the drafting and passage of the Customs 
Modernization Act. Since that time, we have worked with CBP in 
implementing the Act. We were also instrumental in securing the funding 
to build the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and are now working 
with CBP on building a system that benefits both government and trade. 
Over time, we have enlarged our scope to address export related issues, 
as well as work with the World Trade Organization and the World Customs 
Organization.
    Our association has long been interested in improving the 
administration of the customs drawback program. As you know, the 
recovery of duties, taxes and fees on exported articles, paid at time 
of importation, has been part of U.S. customs' law since 1789, and was 
initiated to create jobs, encourage domestic manufacturing and 
encourage exports. Today the drawback program continues to be a very 
successful program, positively affecting nearly $16 billion of U.S. 
exports each year.
    Over the past few years the Trade Support Network Committee, 
composed of individual brokers and industry drawback specialists, has 
been working with CBP to draft a new statute that relieves the agency 
of much of the burden of administering the drawback program, simplifies 
record-keeping and the claims process for the trade community, and 
fully integrates the program into the new ACE import process. For the 
exporting community the new statute will ensure increased customs 
facilitation and will allow companies to continue taking advantage of 
drawback, the sole WTO-legal export incentive still available for U.S. 
manufacturers and producers. We were very supportive of provisions in 
the 2004 Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Act that clarified and made 
improvements to the current drawback program. We commend CBP in its 
effort to work with the import and export community in making further 
updates to the program and to simplify it under the new ACE.
    The association has had an opportunity to review the most recent 
draft statute, dated August 10, 2005, and welcomes the opportunity to 
comment on its provisions.
    Overall, we are pleased with CBP's efforts to streamline and 
simplify the process for companies to collect drawback. We appreciate 
that CBP's underlying goal in seeking these proposed changes is to set 
an objective standard for calculating drawback and to provide more 
flexibility for those using the program. To accomplish this we 
understand the draft statute proposes using the 8-digit HTS for 
determining drawback, rather than the more detailed, but limiting, 
reporting information provided at the 10-digit parts and components 
level. Although some practitioners continue to be concerned that this 
proposed approach is not equitable, overall we believe proper 
congressional oversight can ensure the approach is fair and more 
objective in practice.
    Regarding the proposed statute, we have the following comments to 
the August 10 draft statute:

    1.  Joint and Several Liability--Section (b)(3)--This language is 
ambiguous regarding who is actually liable to the U.S. for drawback 
claims. Since liability is covered under Section 1592 and is not in the 
current drawback statute, we suggest that this section be substantially 
changed or dropped completely.
    2.  Automation--Section (b)(5)--Some drawback practitioners are 
concerned about the requirement for paper-less drawback claims. In 
order to simplify record keeping and reduce the administrative burden 
for the CBP, we understand the need to make the drawback claim filing 
process completely automated. However, 29% of all drawback claims are 
still filed manually. Small brokers are concerned about the cost and 
their need to maintain control of their files when going paper-less. 
Since Customs still permits the manual filing of some import entries, 
drawback claims should be allowed also. The CBP, therefore, needs to 
provide a fall-back for manual filing while the drawback process is 
being fully integrated into the CBP's Automated Commercial Environment 
(ACE).
    3.  NAFTA and other FTAs Section (e)--Filing drawback claims under 
NAFTA is very cumbersome. The way the statute implementing the NAFTA 
agreement is written, JIG members feel there may be room for some new 
interpretation, in particular regarding substitution. We encourage the 
CBP to consider an eight digit substitution and an average line item 
calculation.
    4.  Destruction of Merchandise (Section (f) --The proposed statute 
limits drawback to items that are identified as the actual merchandise 
that was imported. This is a retreat from current law that allows 
destruction on unused merchandise, manufactured articles, and rejected 
and returned merchandise. Current law also allows the use of 
substitution in destruction. Congress extended the provisions of 
destruction for drawback as recently as the Miscellaneous Trade & 
Technical Corrections Act of 2004. JIG believes the new statute should 
match current law regarding destruction.
    5.  Legislative History--The drawback program has been revised and 
changed numerous times since 1930, including most recently in the 
Customs Modernization Act and the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004. Each 
change has resulted in new definitions or procedures, sometimes in 
direct contradiction of earlier definitions, procedures or 
understandings. To ensure continuity of the program, a complete 
understanding of its procedures, and an opportunity for providing more 
details on interpreting the statute, JIG recommends that the 
Subcommittee include a detailed legislative history or statement of 
legislative intent of the U.S. drawback program when it reports out a 
package of miscellaneous trade and tariff items.

    We also have a number of operational questions from individual 
customs brokers and drawback specialists, although we understand it may 
still be too early in the process for Customs to be able to answer them 
fully. Therefore, we have encouraged those individuals to submit their 
questions separately to the Subcommittee and request that the 
Subcommittee endeavor to obtain answers directly from the CBP.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 3363, and we look 
forward to its expedited passage. Should you have any questions 
regarding these comments please do not hesitate to contact me.
                                                  Mary K. Alexander
                                          Chair, Drawback Committee

                                 

                                          The Ad Hoc Drawback Group
                                    San Francisco, California 94104
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    Comments on the H.R. 3363 A Bill to Amend the Tariff Act of 1930 
Relating to Drawback.
    The following are submitted on behalf of the Ad Hoc Drawback Group, 
consisting of Customs Brokers providing drawback services. Our group is 
made up of twelve companies--all licensed Customs Brokers--whose sole 
business is the preparation and submission of drawback claims on behalf 
of exporters and other eligible parties. Though few in number, the 
members of this group were responsible for 20% of the non-petroleum 
drawback duties refunded in 2004.
    We have come late to this process not through lack of interest. 
There simply has been no information provided to the public on the 
process to change the drawback law until recently.
    We trust that the staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means 
will consider our questions and allow our concerns to be aired--which 
has not happened in this process to date.

    1.  Drawback Claimants--Section (b)(1). A long term provision of 
the drawback regulations has been that exporter has the first right of 
drawback. That right can be waived to the importer, manufacturer or 
producer (in the case of manufacturer's drawback) or ``any other 
intermediate party.'' 191.28 & 191.33. The proposed law states ``A 
drawback claimant may be any party''. This is contrary to spirit of the 
drawback law. It does not demand that the party acting as claimant have 
any association with the drawback other than collecting some 
documentation. The ability to claim drawback should be restricted to 
those parties who have an interest in the transaction.
    2.  Importer Liability--Section (b)(3). In this section the 
importer, if a different party than the claimant, can be held 
secondarily liable for drawback claims. This is a radical change in the 
law. We understand that Customs will require the drawback claimant to 
have a surety bond in place before the claim is paid. Should Customs 
determine there is a problem with a paid drawback claim the party 
liable should be the party to whom Customs paid the drawback claim. If 
the claimant does not respond Customs will call on their surety to 
repay the drawback amount. The revenue of the United States is fully 
protected with this method. Currently, the importer when not the 
drawback claimant is not liable either in law or practice. As the 
importer was not paid by Customs, the law should not hold the importer 
liable for repayment.
    3.  Determining the amount of duty to be refunded--Section (d)(1). 
The bill calls for payment of drawback to be made on the basis of the 
duty paid for the HTS line item found on the import entry and 
identified up to eight digits. The amount of the duty listed will be 
divided by the quantity of the import as listed on the entry summary 
for that HTS line.

    Where the eight digit classification covers a variety of part 
numbers at different values and quantities a ``simple'' division of 
value by unit from the import entry gives and ``average'' amount. This 
method denies equity to fulfill a system necessity.
    This can be easily addressed. Extend the reporting line in the 
drawback claim to list the part number, value of that part and duty 
paid on that part. This extension would be completed by the claimant. 
Customs has already proposed to use such extensions or markers in other 
areas of the claim process.

    4.  Lesser of calculations--Section (d)(2). The value of the 
drawback paid will be conditioned by the value of the item exported. 
(Note: this only affects items that have not undergone manufacture). 
This is contrary to the past Supreme Court finding, which has been in 
existence for over 100 years. The Court's definition of exportation 
states that an export is `` a severance of goods from the mass of 
things belonging to this country with an intention of uniting them to 
the mass of the things belonging to some foreign country.'' Value of 
the exportation has never been considered a factor in drawback. This is 
rightly so, since the variety of business conditions may have the goods 
in an export legally shown at a value less than the value of the 
original importation. The duty was based on the import value. When that 
good is exported the entire amount of the duty paid on those goods 
should be repaid through drawback. If the goods are discounted or even 
sent free of charge it is an inequity for the amount of drawback not to 
match the duty paid.

    The value of the exportation should not act as a criteria for the 
payment of drawback.

    5.  Destruction of merchandise--Section (j). The proposed law 
limits drawback to items that can be identified as the actual 
merchandise that was imported. This is a retreat and a major reversal 
from the current law which allows destruction on Unused Merchandise, 
Manufactured Articles, Rejected and Returned Merchandise. The current 
law allows the use of substitution in destruction. As recently as 
passage of the Miscellaneous Trade Bill of 1994, Congress has seen fit 
to extend the provisions of destruction for drawback. This proposed 
drawback bill, without explanation, cuts out most of the options for 
destruction drawback which have been in enforce for the past ten years. 
It should be changed to match the current drawback law as to 
destruction.
    6.  Title 26 of the United States Code is amended to include 19 
U.S.C.  1313(d), which reads as follows:

       ``(d) Flavoring extracts; medicinal or toilet preparations; 
bottled distilled spirits and wines. Upon the exportation of flavoring 
extracts, medicinal or toilet preparations (including perfumery) 
manufactured or produced in the United States in part from domestic 
alcohol on which an internal-revenue tax has been paid, there shall be 
allowed a drawback equal in amount to the tax found to have been paid 
on the alcohol so used.
       ``Upon the exportation of bottled distilled spirits and wines 
manufactured or produced in the United States on which an internal-
revenue tax has been paid or determined, there shall be allowed, under 
regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 
with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, a drawback equal in 
amount to the tax found to have been paid or determined on such bottled 
distilled spirits and wines. In the case of distilled spirits, the 
preceding sentence shall not apply unless the claim for drawback is 
filed by the bottler or packager of the spirits and unless such spirits 
have been stamped or restamped, and marked, especially for export, 
under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 
with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.''

    The Internal Revenue Service will administer the drawback referred 
to in the provision quoted above.
    The purpose of this proposed change is unclear, but only serves to 
confuse. These are two very specific provisions of law that provide for 
the refund of paid taxes based on very clear circumstances. They have 
no connection with the concept of ``Customs Drawback'', i.e. duties, 
taxes and fees are paid upon importation and when a connection can be 
made between that importation and an exportation, these same duties, 
taxes and fees can be refunded up to 99%. It may be appropriate for TTB 
to administer the two specific provisions included in this addendum, 
since the excise taxes for which drawback is sought under those 
provisions are paid to TTB in the first place, and TTB is the agency 
with a record of those taxes. That will not be the case, however, where 
drawback of duties, taxes and fees paid at the border are concerned. 
Customs is the recipient of those duties, taxes and fees and is 
therefore the appropriate agency to administer drawback connected to 
those payments.
    Authority that parallels section 1313(d) is already contained in 
the Internal Revenue Code at Title 26, sections 5131 and 5062. These 
provisions are already administered by TTB. Therefore, if the purpose 
of the addendum is simply to ensure that only TTB--not TTB and 
Customs--administers this specific authority, that objective can be 
accomplished without the addendum. Since the entire proposal is a 
substitute for section 1313, the absence of section 1313(d)'s 
provisions from the proposal would constitute a repeal of that 
subsection, leaving only the Internal Revenue Code provisions 
administered by TTB.
    Not only is the addendum therefore unnecessary; its inclusion could 
well create confusion. It could be viewed as an indication by Congress 
that it wishes to transfer other drawback authority, going beyond that 
of section 1313(d), from Customs to TTB. To preclude any such 
inference, the addendum should be dropped from the bill and clear 
legislative history should be provided to counter any such 
interpretation. Specifically, the legislative history should include a 
clear statement that section 1313(d) raises unique issues and that its 
repeal should not be construed to transfer any other drawback authority 
from Customs to TTB. The record should also state Congress's clear 
intent that the provisions of the new statute are to be administered by 
Customs.
    The members of the Ad Hoc Drawback Group would like to thank the 
Chairman, and members and staff of the Subcommittee on Trade for the 
opportunity to comment on this proposed legislation.
    Members of our group would be happy to receive any questions on 
these comments.
                                                    Neill F. Stroth
                                                              Chair
                                                    Anne-Marie Bush
                                                         Vice Chair

                                 

                                            Veritrade International
                                                  Bellevue WA 98005
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of Veritrade International, I am pleased to respond to 
your request for public comments concerning changes to the Tariff Act 
of 1930 relating to drawback presented as bill H.R. 3363. We have read 
the most recent draft statute, dated August 10, and base our comments 
on that version.
    Our company is a customs brokerage firm that specializes in 
assisting small to medium sized importers and exporters with filing 
drawback claims with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
We represent the interest of clients who choose not to prepare these 
claims themselves due to the burdensome requirements of automation and 
knowledge that are required to file drawback claims. These companies 
realize that the benefits of drawback to their businesses can be 
substantial, even if the amounts refunded might seem small compared to 
the drawback funds paid to the larger drawback claimants. We are all 
uncertain if their current refunds can, or will, continue with the 
proposed changes.
    While we feel that automation can be used to expedite the 
processing and validating of drawback claims, we also know that human 
intervention, human review, and human validation will be necessary to 
ensure the financial responsibility of the program. To that end, the 
ability to file claims electronically is a basic necessity, but using a 
computer as the sole means to validate the claim may be a luxury the 
government can not afford.
    Our specific comments are as follows:

    1.  1. Section (b)(2)--CBP will have no oversight or authority to 
verify information exchanged between importer and exporter.

    It is possible that an exporter may receive import information and 
use it for a drawback claim on their behalf without the importer being 
aware that their imports have been used. We strongly believe that CBP 
should verify that a claimant has permission to take an importer's duty 
though this information does not need to be transmitted at time of the 
drawback claim but can be done during an audit. The statute states that 
the claimant must obtain permission from another party if their 
information is used, but how would CBP know that the permission had 
been granted if they do not check?

    2.  Section (b)(3)--An importer would be secondarily liable to the 
claimant but only to the amount allowed by the importer on that claim.

    The importer should not be liable for drawback claims made be a 
drawback claimant unless the importer gave false information to that 
claimant. The importer should not be liable for any error made by the 
drawback claimant since the importer has no control over that the 
drawback claimant files, except for the information provided by the 
importer to the drawback claimant. Requiring a surety bond for all 
drawback claims would allow CBP to recover any monies incorrectly 
refunded.

    3.  Section (b)(5)--All claims must use the CBP automated system.

    This would be discrimination against the small exporter that has 
infrequent and/or small claims. If import entries are still accepted 
manually than so should drawback claims. Most claimants will file this 
information electronically, but it should not be a requirement. There 
may be times when CBP's computers are down or when software changes are 
being made by CBP that the trade has not had time to program for. 
Drawback claims must still be able to be presented in a non-electronic 
environment to protect elements of the claim that are becoming too old 
to be used.

    4.  Section (d)(1) & (2)--Duties claimed based on Averages and 
Lesser of Two.

    The combined requirement of Averaging and Lesser of Two is an 
attempt by CBP to allow a computer to determine if a drawback claim is 
valid. This is based on information CBP believes will reside in the ACE 
computer for imports and exports. Since ACE is still being programmed 
and the changes to import entries are still in flux, it is impossible 
to know that the idea of comparing an import to an export will work as 
easily as they believe. If it does, then claimants should be able to 
use it if they believe it is in their best interest. But a claimant 
should also have the ability to prepare drawback claims as they are 
now, at the part number level, and submit that information 
electronically to CBP if that is in the claimant's best interest.

    5.  Section (j)--Reduction in calculated refunds by value of a tax 
benefit and the use of Direct Identification only for Destruction 
claims.

    What is the definition of a tax benefit? Would a claimant have to 
prepare their annual corporate taxes two different ways (one without 
the destruction and drawback and one with) to determine what the 
benefit was?
    The reintroduction of Direct Identification after the recent 
changes with the Miscellaneous Trade & Technical Corrections Act of 
2004 to Substitution for Destruction drawback would appear to be a 
major leap backward. Congress has already approved the change; will 
they need to justify it again?
    Some of the provisions we have discussed have raised substantial 
operational questions. Although we realize that the statute comes 
before the regulations, it would be unwise to look at the proposed 
statute and not try to understand how it will work.
    Thank you for allowing our comments on H.R. 3363. We do not 
recommend passage of this bill as it now stands. We strongly feel that 
more discussions are required to take place between ``The Trade'' and 
CBP to work through the concerns expressed above. We respectfully 
request the H.R. 3363 not be added to, or included in, other 
legislation until the above points are discussed and agreed upon by all 
parties.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Anne-Marie Bush
                                                          President

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
* Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-
CAFTA.--To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires 
duty protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 
shoe types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the 
above bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-
CAFTA.--To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires 
duty protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 
shoe types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the 
above bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-
CAFTA.--To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires 
duty protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 
shoe types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the 
above bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R.3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
    H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

4The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R.3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R.3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R.3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers.
       H.R.3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R.2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R.2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R.2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R.2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R.2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R.2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R.2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R.2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R.2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R.2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R.3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R.3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R.3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R.3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R.3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R.3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R.3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R.3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R.3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R.3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R.3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R.3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R.3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R.3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R.3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R.3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear--
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R.3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R.3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R.3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers.
       H.R.3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R.2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R.2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R.2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R.2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R.2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R.2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R.2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R.2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R.2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R.2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R.3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R.3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R.3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R.3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R.3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R.3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R.3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R.3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R.3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R.3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R.3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R.3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R.3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R.3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R.3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R.3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear.
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
    H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often

perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                                      Meade Instruments Corporation
                                               Washington, DC 20037
                                                    August 31, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Shaw:

    I am writing on behalf of Meade Instruments Corporation, a 
respected Irvine technology company that employs approximately 300 
Californians in manufacturing, marketing, and distribution. On Meade's 
behalf, we write in support of H.R. 3414, a duty suspension bill that 
would extend the tariff exemption for certain toy telescopes that was 
passed into law in section 1221 of H.R. 1047, ``the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 2004''.
    Before last year's law, all telescopes\1\ were subject to an 8% 
tariff, regardless of whether they are complex instruments costing tens 
of thousands of dollars, or toys retailing for less than one hundred 
dollars. Although ``toys'' are exempt from tariffs, toy telescopes were 
not.\2\ This is not merely illogical but also unfair: unfair to 
telescope sellers whose products compete against other toys that are 
duty-free, and unfair to the young consumers of these telescopes. 
Moreover, these tariffs did not protect any domestic United States 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Telescopes are classified within the U.S. tariff system and by 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') rulings as HTS 
9005.80.4040, except for the telescopes in HTS 9902.02.13, for which 
the duties are now suspended, pursuant to the 2004 law.
    \2\ The only telescope CBP classifies as a toy is a 4-inch plastic 
``Peter Pan spyglass/telescope'' with a figure of Captain Hook molded 
into the handle, which was given away in children's meals by a fast-
food hamburger chain. Although this is a toy, it is barely a telescope, 
and certainly not the only type of telescope used by children at play.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The continued duty waiver would keep children's telescopes on a 
level playing field with other ``toys.'' The tariff exemption covers 
the small refracting and reflecting telescopes that are marketed and 
sold cheaply to children.\3\ Meade would like Congress to continue the 
tariff break-out and duty suspension for refracting telescopes with 
50mm (or smaller) lenses and reflecting telescopes with 76mm (or 
smaller) lenses. These telescopes typically retail for $30 to $80 each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Telescopes work by collecting light to create a sharp image, 
and then magnifying that image into an eyepiece. In a refracting 
telescope, an objective lens collects the light. In a reflecting 
telescope, a concave mirror collects and focuses the light. Note that 
catadioptric telescopes (or mirror-lens telescopes) employ a 
combination of both mirrors and lenses, but catadioptric telescopes do 
not deserve protection under a ``toy'' exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The remainder of this letter briefly explains how (1) these 
telescopes are effectively toys; (2) a waiver does not threaten any 
domestic interests; and (3) a waiver will be revenue neutral.
Telescopes of these types are effectively toys, and thus should be 
        exempted from tariff
    Refracting telescopes with 50mm lenses, and reflecting telescopes 
with 76mm lenses, are not designed for scientific or professional use. 
They are less powerful than such adult telescopes because they are 
manufactured for the amusement of children. Rather than allowing a 
professional study of the sky, these simple telescopes permit children 
to gaze at the sky and imitate serious astronomers. They are also 
marketed and retailed as toys. The packaging material for the ``Meade 
Jupiter'' telescope, for example, reads: ``Recommended for ages 8 and 
up. Adult supervision recommended.'' Telescopes of this size and power 
(whether imported and sold by Meade or one of its competitors) are sold 
almost exclusively in toy stores such as Toys R Us, or as toys in 
general retail stores such as Wal-Mart.
This tariff exemption would not threaten any domestic industries
    Meade Instruments Corporation and Bushnell/Tasco are the two major 
domestic toy telescope sellers.\4\ The toys sold by these companies 
involve low-end manufacturing, and thus cannot be cost-effectively 
manufactured in the United States. Both companies import their toy 
telescopes. Meade is unaware of any domestic manufacturer, and is 
moreover unaware of any company that would find it profitable to 
manufacture such telescopes in the United States. There was no 
controversy or opposition to the duty suspension on telescopes in the 
past bill and there is none of which we are aware now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Meade Instruments Corporation also produces high-end 
telescopes, microscopes, binoculars, and telescope software and 
accessories in the United States. In some of these lines of business, 
competitors include toy and scientific related companies, as well as 
certain ``camera'' companies such as Canon, Minolta, Nikon, and 
Olympus. In toy telescopes, however, the two major United States 
companies are Meade and Bushnell/Tasco, the latter of which is 
privately held.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A tariff exemption for these telescopes will be revenue neutral
    According to CBO guidelines, a tariff exemption is considered 
revenue neutral if the total budget impact will be less than $500,000. 
Meade's competitor in this industry is privately held, and thus does 
not publish sales figures. Nonetheless, Meade's knowledge of the market 
and familiarity with its competitor makes us quite confident that the 
revenue impact will be under that figure.
    Meade's industry information is that domestic retailers currently 
import roughly 450,000 refracting telescopes of 50mm or less. The 
average import value is $12, meaning that the foregone tariffs would be 
roughly $430,000.
    Reflecting telescopes of 76mm or less add an insignificant amount 
to the total. Domestic retailers import roughly 25,000 units. The 
average import value is $20, meaning that the foregone tariffs from 
refracting telescopes will be only an additional $40,000.
    Thus, the total revenue impact of our proposed duty waiver would be 
roughly $470,000.
Conclusion
    Meade Instruments Corporation respectfully requests that Congress 
pass a duty suspension bill extending the duty suspension on toy 
telescopes for the following reasons:

      The 8% duty adversely affects the U.S. companies that 
import toy telescopes, without benefiting any domestic manufacturers
      These companies create jobs and growth in California, as 
well as elsewhere in the country
      The duty makes it more difficult for children to choose 
toy telescopes vs. other toys
      These telescopes are substantially different in 
construction, use and ability from other telescopes
      There is no opposition to, or controversy with, this 
duty-suspension request
      The revenue loss to the U.S. government would be de 
minimis

            Best Regards,
                                                       Peggy Clarke

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

         Statement of Erik O. Autor, National Retail Federation
    The National Retail Federation (NRF) submits this statement to the 
Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee to express the U.S. retail industry's 
strong support for H.R. 3416, which is under consideration for 
inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. NRF is the world's largest 
retail trade association with membership that comprises all retail 
formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, 
discount, catalog, Internet and independent stores as well as the 
industry's key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF 
represents an industry with more than 1.5 million U.S. retail 
establishments, more than 23 million employees--about one in five 
American workers--and 2004 sales of $4.1 trillion. As the industry 
umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national and 
international retail associations.
    H.R. 3416--A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign 
affairs exemption to the rule making requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee 
for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    NRF and the U.S. retail industry also strongly support H.R. 3416 
and its inclusion in a miscellaneous trade bill. As long ago as 
September 1996, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), as it was 
then called, issued a report evaluating the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA),\1\ the multi-agency 
government entity responsible for administering of the system of 
textile an apparel quotas. That report triggered calls by Members of 
Congress, including Members of the Ways and Means Committee, for 
``broad reform of the covert procedures of the CITA bureaucracy--The 
GAO report describes a hidden and erratic process at CITA which results 
in indefensible decisions to impose import quotas.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United States General Accounting Office, Textile Trade: 
Operations of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements, September 1996, GAO/NSIAD-96-186.
    \2\ House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, quoted in 
``Congressional Legislators Urge Reform of Textile Trade Committee,'' 
Daily Executives Report, Bureau of National Affairs, October 7, 1996, 
p. A-4 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nothing has changed in the last nine years with respect to how CITA 
operates. CITA continues to have a huge negative impact on American 
consumers, particularly low-income American families, and operates 
behind closed doors. Claiming coverage under the ``foreign affairs'' 
exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act, CITA makes decisions 
to impose quotas on imports from China and other countries (most 
notably, Vietnam), out of public view and with no accountability and 
little opportunity for meaningful public comment.
    In addition, CITA's traditional role changed radically in 2002, 
when the President designated it as the government entity responsible 
for administering the China textile safeguards mechanism, ostensibly a 
quasi-judicial administrative remedy. Under the textile safeguards 
procedures, however, retailers and other interested parties that have 
opposed safeguards quotas have no opportunity to comment on whether a 
petition even meets the basic requirements for initiation of a 
safeguards investigation. CITA accepts only written comments after it 
has accepted a petition (which it almost always does), and holds no 
hearings as does the U.S. International Trade Commission that 
administers other types of safeguards remedies. Finally, CITA written 
decisions do not respond to and, for the most part, ignore points 
raised in opposition, and fail to meet even the most basic standards 
applicable to other agencies. Particularly with its expanded role in 
administering the China textile safeguard mechanism, it is simply 
unacceptable for CITA to continue to operate essentially as a ``star 
chamber,'' unaccountable under even the most basic standards and 
protections afforded under U.S. administrative law.
    In a day and age when the United States demands that our trading 
partners adhere to open and transparent regulatory procedures, it is 
astounding that an arm of the United States government is allowed to 
continue to operate in secret and free from any judicial oversight or 
accountability. No U.S. government agency that does not deal with 
national security matters and that has such a major financial impact on 
both U.S. companies and consumers should be shielded in this manner 
from public scrutiny and remain essentially immune from judicial 
review.
    H.R. 3416 would simply open CITA up to public view and judicial 
scrutiny. It is a very modest bill in that it makes no further changes 
in the ways in which CITA operates. It will not restrict or retard in 
any way CITA's ability to respond to charges that increased imports are 
causing or threatening to cause market disruption. It merely ensures 
that the process of responding to those charges is clear and open, and 
that CITA decisions are based on substantial evidence on a record 
gathered during an investigation, and are not made in a manner that is 
arbitrary or capricious. As civil society groups frequently remind us, 
transparency is a good thing. Thus, H.R. 3416 should be completely non-
controversial and is certainly long overdue. NRF strongly encourages 
its inclusion in the next miscellaneous tariff bill and its ultimate 
passage by Congress.
    NRF appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments H.R. 3146. 
We strongly support and urge the inclusion of H.R. 3146 in any 
miscellaneous trade legislation.

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
3Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
       We believe that these products are not made in the United States 
in commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
       RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.--It is our 
understanding that these products are not manufactured in any 
commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may facilitate proper findings of short 
supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs dependent 
on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                 

                          American Apparel and Footwear Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20215

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association--the 
national trade association of the apparel and footwear industries, and 
their suppliers--I am writing to express strong support for the 
following bills identified in the subject advisory.
    HR 3416_A bill to prohibit the application of the foreign affairs 
exemption to the rule making requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act with respect to actions of the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation and believes it is 
long overdue. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements (CITA) is responsible for far reaching decisions that deeply 
affect most AAFA members yet its actions are almost always taken behind 
closed doors with insufficient public scrutiny. This lack of 
transparency creates a highly unpredictable environment that is often 
perceived as being unfair. Recently, CITA has published guidelines to 
introduce some predictability into its deliberations. While we applaud 
those limited moves as a step in the right direction, we believe they 
are insufficient to provide the full accountability necessary for an 
intergovernmental agency which such responsibilities. Moreover, CITA 
has at times disregarded its own published guidelines as it has 
implemented China safeguard and short supply procedures. As a result, 
AAFA supports bringing CITA under the full jurisdiction of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
    HR 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports the repeal of the Byrd Amendment. 
The Byrd legislation was enacted outside of the regular legislative 
process, by committees that do not enjoy primary jurisdiction over 
trade issues, and with no opportunity for public comment. Moreover, as 
has been found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), this provision 
puts the United States out of compliance with its WTO obligations. In 
fact, the European Union is currently assessing penalties on U.S. 
produced clothing in retaliation. Other countries have threatened to do 
the same. AAFA believes repeal of this abominable provision should be 
made a priority.
    HR 1221, HR 3386, HR 3387, HR 3388, HR 3389, HR 3391, HR 3392, HR 
3393, HR 3394, HR 3395, HR 3483, HR 3484, HR 3485, HR 3486, HR 3487, HR 
3488, HR 3489, HR 3490, HR 3491--Duty suspensions with respect to 
various footwear articles. [Note: This does not include HR 3390, which 
we understand has been withdrawn.]
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. We are not aware 
of any domestic production in these footwear HTS lines. Moreover, none 
of these bills covers the 17 footwear items that the rubber and plastic 
footwear industry association identify as still being manufactured in 
the United States.
    HR 1945--A bill to provide temporary duty reductions for certain 
cotton fabrics, and for other purposes.
    Comment: AAFA strongly supports this legislation. Our association 
supported an earlier version of this legislation in the 108th Congress. 
This legislation would result in duty reductions for cotton fabrics 
that are already designated in short supply under various trade 
preference programs because these fabrics are unavailable in the United 
States and in the preference countries. Given that finished shirts may 
enter duty free using these fabrics, we believe it is also appropriate 
to permit the fabrics themselves to enter duty free. Thus, U.S. 
domestic manufacturers of shirts will be able to enjoy equal access to 
those same high quality fabrics that foreign based manufacturers enjoy.
    HR 2589/HR 2590--Two bills to extend the temporary suspension of 
duty on certain filament yarns
    Comment. AAFA strongly supports these provisions. AAFA was involved 
in the development of the original legislation and understand that the 
conditions that led to successful passage of the original legislation, 
including the fact that the yarns in question are not produced 
domestically, continue to exist. Thus, these provisions should be 
extended.
    HR 1230_A bill to extend trade benefits to certain tents imported 
into the United States.
    Comments. AAFA strongly supports this provision. This legislation 
relates to certain camping tents which are not made in the United 
States. Moreover, similar but slightly smaller tents, differentiated 
only by the fact that they are classified as ``backpacking'' tents, 
already enjoy duty free treatment. This provision would correct that 
anomaly.
    In addition, we note the inclusion of a number of other provisions 
relating to various yarns, fabrics, and fibers. While we are not taking 
a position on any of these provisions we would suggest that reduction 
in duties in those articles is more likely to sustain U.S. jobs by 
providing U.S. manufacturers access to foreign inputs when those inputs 
are not available in the United States. Moreover, inasmuch as many free 
trade agreements now contain yarn and/or fiber forward principles, 
enactment of such provisions may also facilitate proper findings of 
short supply for those programs, which would also support U.S. jobs 
dependent on those production-sharing relationships.
    Please contact me should you require additional information on 
these or other provisions.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                                      Stephen Lamar
                                                 Sr. Vice President

                                 

                     Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America
                                               Washington, DC 20004
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Hon. E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw,

    This letter is being submitted by the Footwear Distributors and 
Retailers of America (FDRA) and its members in response to the 
Subcommittee's request for comments on Technical Corrections to U.S. 
Trade Laws and Miscellaneous Duty Suspension Bills.
    FDRA's members comprise U.S. footwear distributors and retailers 
that, together, account for approximately 80 percent of footwear sales 
at retail in the United States. Also, imports now account for 99 
percent of U.S. consumption of footwear. In other words, the U.S. 
footwear market comprises nearly all imports; any remaining U.S. 
production competes on basis other than price and is not affected by 
the elimination of tariffs.
    FDRA and its members support the elimination of tariffs on footwear 
via all vehicles, including through legislation, free trade agreements 
and the current WTO Doha Round negotiations. FDRA recognizes the 
Committee's established practice of considering legislation to 
temporarily suspend duties on products only where annual revenue losses 
from duty suspensions total approximately $500,000 or less. FDRA 
understands that revenue losses from duty suspensions under H.R. 3487 
are higher, but the amount remains modest and eliminating these tariffs 
will benefit FDRA and its member companies and in no way affect any 
domestic production. Therefore, FDRA supports passage of H.R. 1221, 
H.R. 3386, H.R. 3387, H.R. 3388, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3391, H.R. 3392, H.R. 
3393, H.R. 3394, H.R. 3395, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3484, H.R. 3485, H.R. 3486, 
H.R. 3487, H.R. 3488, H.R. 3489, H.R. 3490 and H.R. 3491.

                                                  Peter T. Mangione
                                 ______
                                 
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Retailer Members

Bakers Footwear Group
Brown Shoe Company
Clarks Companies
Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW)
Famous Footwear
FOOTACTIONUSA
Foot Locker, Inc.
Footstar, Inc.
Gap, Inc.
Genesco, Inc.
J.C. Penney Company
Meldisco
Naturalizer Retail
Payless ShoeSource
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Rack Room Shoes
Retail Ventures, Inc.
The Stride Rite Corporation
Value City
Vans, Inc.
Wal-Mart

Distributor Members

ACI
Aerogroup Int., Inc.
ASICS Tiger Corporation
ATSCO Footwear, Inc.
AZALEIA
BBC International
BCNY International Inc.
Bennett Footwear Group
Cels Enterprises
C.O. Lynch
Cole Haan
Converse
Drew Shoe Corporation
Dynasty Footwear
Elan-Polo, Inc.
E.S. Originals
Global Brand Marketing, Inc.
Green Market Services
HYI
H.H. Brown Shoe Company
Inter Pacific Corporation
Jimlar Corporation
K-Swiss, Inc.
Jones Apparel/Nine West
Laird, Ltd
LJO, Inc
Mark Tucker, Inc.
Mephisto USA
Mercury International
Nike, Inc.
Olem Shoe Corporation
Prima Group Traders, Inc.
RANNA, Inc.
Reef
Reebok International
Renaissance Imports
Right Stuff, Inc.
Salland Industries LTD
Sara Lee
SG Footwear, Inc.
Skechers USA, Inc.
Street Cars, Inc.
The Rockport Company
The Topline Corporation
Valley Lane Industries
Wolverine World Wide

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ron Fromm, Brown Shoe Company, Chairman
Jim Issler, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Vice-chairman
Killick Datta, Global Brand Marketing, Inc., Treasurer
Rick Mina, Foot Locker, Inc
Hal Pennington, Genesco, Inc.
Ernie Shore, Rack Room Shoes
Debbie Ferree, DSW
Melanie Owens, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Arthur Emmanuel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Debbie Kocks, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*
Greg Ribatt, Bennett Footwear Group
Robert Callahan, Elan-Polo, Inc.
Joey Safedy, E.S. Originals
Laurence Tarica, Jimlar Corporation
Alan Luchette, Jones Apparel/Nine West Group
Robert Cooperstein, Mercury International
William Snowden, Sr., The Topline Corporation
LuAnne Via, Sears, Roebuck and Company
Steve Duffy, Wolverine World Wide
Cecil McDermott, J.C. Penney
Rick Thornton, The Stride Rite Corporation
Matt Rubel, Payless ShoeSource
Pamela Salkovitz, The Stride Rite Corporation*
Jeff Shepard, Meldisco

EX-OFFICIO

Robert Campbell, BBC International
Irving Wiseman, Mercury International
Joseph Russell, Elan-Polo, Inc., Chairman
*Alternate member

                                 

                                            Payless ShoeSouce, Inc.
                                               Topeka, Kansas 66601
                                                  September 1, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    We are submitting these comments in response to the Subcommittee=s 
request for written comments from parties interested in technical 
corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension 
proposals. Specifically, we wish to express our support for the 
following bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Payless ShoeSource, Inc. is the Western Hemisphere's largest family 
footwear retailer, with over 4,600 stores across the United States, 
Canada, Central America and the Caribbean. The vast majority of those 
stores are located in the U.S. The Company employs over 27,000 
associates worldwide.
    Over the last 20 years, the production of footwear in the United 
States has dwindled to practically nothing. The footwear manufacturers 
still in the U.S. generally produce either specialized types of rubber 
or leather products or high-end athletic shoes.
    Most footwear duties are therefore out-dated. They do not protect 
any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the purchase price of most 
footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The above bills would eliminate the 
duties on several types of footwear but they have been carefully 
drafted so as not to affect the few remaining types which are still 
manufactured in the United States.
    Duty-free entry of footwear would benefit the U.S. customer. The 
movement towards duty-free footwear would also be consistent with the 
overall direction the United States has taken in recently negotiated 
free trade agreements in Latin America.
    Negotiations of the DR-CAFTA and the last miscellaneous tariff bill 
both served to engage the remaining domestic footwear interests in a 
discussion of exactly which types of shoes are still made in this 
country. As a result of those negotiations, all but 17 of the 115 shoe 
classifications codified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule will be 
able to enter the U.S. duty-free from the Caribbean Basin countries and 
the Central American nations which become signatories to the DR-CAFTA.
    To the extent any domestic footwear production still requires duty 
protection, that field has been clearly drawn to include only 17 shoe 
types. To avoid controversy, those 17 types are unaffected by the above 
bills.
    As the members of the Subcommittee are aware, tariff bills of this 
nature contain explicit references to 8-digit HTS numbers. The text of 
the bills, though, describes shoes types which are identifiable at the 
more specific 10-digit HTS level. Thus, the fiscal impact of these 
bills is limited to the more narrowly described footwear types and is 
of a much lower magnitude than might otherwise be suggested by an 
analysis at the 8-digit level.
    In summary, eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which 
are no longer produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings 
for the U.S. consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. 
shoe retailers and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe 
producers.
    We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as 
part of the miscellaneous trade package in the coming months. Also, the 
bills are designed as a temporary suspension should any U.S. 
manufacturing operation become established.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler, 
Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., if you have any questions on these provisions 
or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Michael J. Massey
                                              Senior Vice President
                                      General Counsel and Secretary

                                 

                                Retail Industry Leaders Association
                                          Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                  September 2, 2005
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman
House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw:

    On behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), we 
welcome the opportunity to submit comments on technical corrections to 
U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. There are 
several provisions that RILA strongly supports or opposes in the list 
of potential bills to be included in the Miscellaneous Trade Bill.
    By way of background, RILA is an alliance of the world's most 
successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies--the leaders 
of the retail industry. RILA members represent almost $1.4 trillion in 
sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing 
facilities and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers 
and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as 
internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and 
worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 
retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the 
industry as a whole.
H.R. 1121--A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930
    RILA strongly supports the inclusion of H.R. 1121 in the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. Repeal of the ``Byrd Amendment'' 
is a top priority for RILA and its members. The Byrd Amendment annually 
funnels money collected from antidumping and countervailing duty cases 
directly to companies that file petitions. These payouts create a 
perverse incentive for companies to file petitions and add an 
increasing number of product categories to those petitions in hopes of 
collecting a financial windfall. In addition, the presence of the Byrd 
Amendment impedes the settlement of trade cases because of the 
financial incentive given to the petitioners.
    Since enactment of the amendment, the number of antidumping 
petitions filed on consumer ready products has increased. As a result 
of the amendment, more than $1 billion has been distributed to domestic 
petitioners with no strings attached and with no measurable increase to 
competitiveness. Repeal would not affect the operation of antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, but would remove the perverse incentive 
to file cases and would keep revenue collected in the government 
treasury to be spent in a more appropriate way. Congress should support 
``fair-trade'' that creates a level playing field for everyone, not 
just import-sensitive domestic industries.
    In January 2003, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body 
affirmed an earlier ruling that the ``Byrd Amendment'' was a violation 
of U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. should live up to its international 
obligations. The U.S. is now facing retaliatory tariffs from several 
countries on a wide range of products for not repealing the Byrd 
Amendment. In a time when export trade is so important to our economy, 
unnecessary duties stifle exports and cause widespread layoffs while 
corporate subsidies do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of 
domestic industries.
    Consumers are the real losers in this process. By encouraging 
protectionist behavior, the Byrd Amendment drives up prices for 
American consumer by encouraging trade defense actions that can 
increase the cost of consumer goods. The taxpayer funds distributed as 
a result of the law could be better used for other purposes.
    H.R. 445--A bill to amend section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
with respect to the marking of imported home furniture
    RILA strongly opposes this bill. Such a labeling provision is 
unnecessary and adds additional burdens and costs to importers and 
retailers. Under section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, imported home 
furniture is already required to have a permanent country of origin 
marking. We do not believe an additional labeling requirement is useful 
or appropriate.
    Duty Suspension Bills
    RILA supports the following duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 3308--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on nail 
clippers.
       H.R. 3310--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on electric 
pencil sharpeners.
    We believe that these products are not made in the United States in 
commercial quantities sufficient to satisfy RILA members and their 
customers. As well, the duty on these products averages less than 5%.
    RILA also supports the following footwear duty suspension bills:
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3388--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
women's footwear.
       H.R. 3389--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear for girls.
       H.R. 3390--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
protective footwear.
       H.R. 3391--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
athletic footwear.
       H.R. 3392--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
footwear with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3394--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3395--A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
work footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    Production of footwear in the United States has significantly 
declined over the last 20 years. Footwear manufacturers in the U.S. 
generally produce either specialized types of rubber or leather 
products or high-end athletic shoes
    As a result, most of the current footwear duties are out-dated. 
They do not protect any U.S. industry but only serve to increase the 
purchase price of most footwear paid by the U.S. consumer. The footwear 
duty suspension bills being considered would eliminate the duties on 
several types of footwear, but will not affect the few remaining 
sensitive footwear categories which are still produced in the United 
States.
    Eliminating U.S. duties on those footwear types which are no longer 
produced in the U.S. would generate a significant savings for the U.S. 
consumer, would allow for increased productivity of U.S. shoe retailers 
and would not harm the few remaining domestic shoe producers.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff bill. If you have any questions, please 
contact Lori Denham, RILA's Senior Vice President for Policy and 
Planning or Jonathan Gold, RILA's Vice President Global Supply Chain 
Policy.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Sandra L. Kennedy
                                                          President

                                 

                                              Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
                                          Washington, DC 20004-1601
                                                    August 30, 2005
The Honorable Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Ben Cardin
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1106 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Cardin:

    On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am writing to submit these 
comments in response to the Subcommittee's request for written comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and 
miscellaneous duty suspension proposals. Specifically, our company 
wishes to express its support for the following bills:
       H.R. 3308--To suspend temporarily the duty on erasers.
       H.R. 3309--To suspend temporarily the duty on nail clippers.
       H.R. 3310--To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial 
flowers.
       H.R. 3311--To suspend temporarily the duty on electrically 
operated pencil sharpeners.
       H.R. 2477--To suspend, temporarily the duty on bicycle 
speedometers.
       H.R. 2478--To suspend temporarily the duty on baby carriers, 
chain adjustors, chain covers, mechanical grips with 7/8'' internal 
diameter, air horns, wide-angle reflectors, plastic saddle covers, 
safety pads, chain tensioners, toe clips, head sets, seat posts, all 
the foregoing for chief use on bicycles.
       H.R. 2479--To suspend temporarily the duty on unicycles.
       H.R. 2556--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices with warmer units.
       H.R. 2557--To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener 
electric devices.
       H.R. 2817--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2818--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2819--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber 
basketballs.
       H.R. 2820--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
volleyballs.
       H.R. 2821--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 
basketballs.
       H.R. 3033--To (1) provide duty-free treatment for certain 
educational devices; and (2) extend such treatment through December 31, 
2008.
       H.R. 3112--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain decorative 
plates, decorative sculptures, decorative plaques, and architectural 
miniatures.
       H.R. 3113--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with 
or without saucers, of porcelain or china.
       H.R. 3114--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.
       H.R. 3115--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain clocks.
       H.R. 3116--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles.
       H.R. 3117--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass 
articles of lead crystal.
       H.R. 3118--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain music 
boxes.
       H.R. 1221--To suspend the duty on certain rubber or plastic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3386--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3387--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3388--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's 
footwear.
       H.R. 3389--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for girls.
       H.R. 3391--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3392--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
with open toes or heels.
       H.R. 3393--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3394--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3395--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3483--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.
       H.R. 3484--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3485--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3486--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear 
for men.
       H.R. 3487--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3488--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work 
footwear.
       H.R. 3489--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain athletic 
footwear.
       H.R. 3490--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rubber or 
plastic footwear
       H.R. 3491--To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather 
footwear.
    These bills would either reduce or eliminate the duties on many 
products that Wal-Mart sells to its customers. ``Every day low prices'' 
is our motto, thus any action taken by the Congress that will help us 
lower our prices to the consumer has our support.
    It is our understanding that these products are not manufactured in 
any commercially viable manner in the United States. We hope that the 
Subcommittee will favorably report these bills as part of the 
miscellaneous trade package in the coming months.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter, and 
please feel free to contact me or Tres Bailey if you have any questions 
on these provisions or require additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                            Angela Marshall-Hofmann
        Director, International Trade, Federal Government Relations

                                  
