[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 15833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   LOW-INCOME FAMILIES HURT BY U.S.-CANADA SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. JIM KOLBE

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 20, 2000

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 2000, I introduced, along 
with my colleague Representative Steny Hoyer, H. Con. Res. 252, calling 
for an end to the U.S./Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement when it expires 
in 2001. The resolution was introduced with 30 bipartisan original 
cosponsors. There are now 115 cosponsors from all regions of the 
country and the number is growing every day. The purpose of the 
resolution is to: (1) Ensure a competitive North American market for 
softwood lumber; (2) ensure free trade regarding softwood lumber 
between the U.S. and Canada; (3) ensure all stakeholders are included 
in discussions regarding trade of softwood lumber; and, (4) ensure that 
the Softwood Lumber Agreement is allowed to terminate when it expires 
in 2001. By taking these steps, the negative impact on U.S. consumers 
and housing affordability can be eliminated.
  The Softwood Lumber Agreement imposes quotas on lumber shipped from 
Canada to the United States. These quotas have a dramatic impact on the 
price and volatility of lumber, which jeopardizes affordable housing in 
America and hurts American consumers. A recent study by Brink Lindsay 
and Mark Groombridge of the Cato Institute entitled ``Nailing the 
Homeowner: the Economic Impact of Trade Protection of the Softwood 
Lumber Industry,'' confirms the detrimental impact this agreement has 
on the American consumer. The authors calculated that trade 
restrictions imposed upon the American consumer by the Softwood Lumber 
Agreement added an estimated $50 to $80 per thousand board feet to the 
price of lumber. The result is an addition of $800 to $1,300 to the 
cost of new home prices, thereby driving some 300,000 American families 
out of the housing market. Unfortunately, the bulk of these consumers 
are lower-income families.
  The Softwood Lumber Agreement is the worst form of government market 
intervention, driving up consumer costs and distorting the free market. 
Fortunately, the agreement is set to expire on April 1, 2001. I hope 
that the Administration will seriously consider the impact of the 
Softwood Lumber Agreement on consumers within the United States and 
allow the agreement to expire with no extension or further quota 
agreement. If the administration wants to discuss softwood lumber and 
forestry matters with Canada, the President should include consumers in 
any discussion. I hope the Administration will notify interested 
members of the U.S. House of Representatives if such discussions are 
underway.




                          ____________________