[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 5164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               INTRODUCTION OF TWO DUTY SUSPENSION BILLS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JUDY BIGGERT

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 18, 2002

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two pieces of 
legislation that will suspend the duties on two specific products 
imported into the United States. Both are chemicals used in the 
production of agricultural herbicides.
  Among the first herbicides to be registered in the United States, 
2,4-Dicholorophenoxyacetic acid, otherwise referred to as 2,4-D, is 
used principally by farmers to help protect crops from damage caused by 
weeds. In addition to agricultural applications, 2,4-D has been widely 
used to control broadleaf and woody plants on rangelands, lawns, golf 
courses, forests, roadways, and parks.
  The other chemical, 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, otherwise 
referred to as MCPA, is also an agricultural herbicide, but controls a 
slightly different spectrum of weeds. It was developed in the 1940's, 
and has been used since then to effectively control a wide variety of 
broadleaf weeds in cereals, grasses, flax, and non-crop areas.
  Both chemicals are advantageous because they offer: broad spectrum 
weed control; low toxicity; low environmental persistence; little 
evidence of weed resistance following decades of use; and relative cost 
advantages over other chemical and non-chemical methods of weed 
control. In their long history, these chemicals have been tested 
according to modem standards and continue to meet regulatory 
acceptability.
  So why is it appropriate to suspend the duties on these two 
chemicals?
  First and foremost, MCPA is not produced in the United States, so a 
duty on foreign imports of this product only burdens American 
businesses. As for 2,4-D, only our trading partners with Normal Trade 
Relations currently pay the duty on this product; the majority of 
imports enter the United States duty-free under the Generalized System 
of Preferences. In this way, the duty undesirably discriminates against 
our good trading partners, and therefore should be suspended.
  Cost is another reason to suspend the duty on these chemicals. 
Reducing costs is paramount in today's depressed agricultural sector. 
This bill helps agriculture producers and consumers in this effort by 
suspending the duty on critical herbicide inputs. In addition to 
helping farmers reduce their costs, this legislation would benefit the 
financially pressed federal, state, county and municipal government 
agencies that use these chemicals to maintain our roads, forests, 
rangelands, and parks.
  The cost of inputs is such an important factor affecting the global 
agricultural economy that a proposal will be considered during the next 
WTO multilateral round of international trade negotiations to make all 
major agricultural inputs duty free. This ``Zero for Zero'' initiative 
will relieve agricultural producers and consumers from the unnecessary 
and burdensome costs of numerous duties. In light of this development, 
the legislation I introduce today is timely.
  By suspending the duty on two chemicals, these bills lift a costly 
burden from American businesses, stop the discrimination against our 
close trading partners, and reduce input costs for agriculture 
consumers and producers. I urge my colleagues to support both bills, 
and I look forward to working with the Ways and Means Committee to 
include these bills in comprehensive duty suspension legislation that 
the Trade Subcommittee will consider in the near future.

                          ____________________